<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%; page-break-before:
always">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><b>Remarks from the
Association for Progressive Communications on the NETmundial
Initiative (NMI) Initial Scoping Meeting to be held in Geneva on
28
August 2014</b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">By the time most
members of civil society active in Internet governance heard of
the
NETmundial Initiative (or Alliance as it as originally termed) it
was
already a fait accompli. A few carefully selected civil society
invitees were given a choice to get on board, or miss their chance
to
participate in internet governance's next 'great event'. A further
few were invited to the initial scoping meeting.<sup><a
class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc"
href="#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a></sup></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">APC was one of the
organizations that received an invitation but as we are not
attending
the meeting we are sharing these remarks.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p>The NMI appropriates the name of NETMundial, the multistakeholder
event held in Brazil earlier this year. Yet there are few
resemblances between the NMI and NETMundial outside of the name.
The
initiative was conceived of in a top down manner, and efforts to
implement it so far – the scoping meeting- have reflected this
approach.<!-- --> It has been neither inclusive nor transparent.
It
is of great concern to APC that information about the event was
only
released to the public by the organisers after it had been leaked.
This is not an appropriate profile for any event that purports to
operate in the spirit of the NETMundial principles. And it does
not
bode well for its future success as a multistakeholder initiative.
It
is hard to grasp how an initiative that starts off in this manner
can
become a democratic, transparent and participatory venue for the
global community serving human rights and the public good.</p>
<p>Started, it appears, by the Chief Executive of ICANN, and
facilitated and hosted by World Economic Forum (WEF), the NMI
appears
to have good intentions, namely to (quoting from the brief): 1)
“Facilitate a distributed environment of effective global
cooperation among stakeholders through innovative and legitimate
mechanisms to tackle current and future Internet issues; 2) Inform
and equip capacity development initiatives to ensure global
participation in Internet cooperation, especially from
under-represented regions; and 3) Work to build trust in the
Internet
and its governance ecosystem.” <sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc"
name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a></sup></p>
<p><font color="#000000">But is the WEF an appropriate forum for
these processes? </font><font color="#000000">The WEF has close
links
to business, and is mostly financed by </font><font
color="#000000">big</font><font color="#000000">
business. It has expertise in facilitating engagement between
business and governments, and sometimes also with civil society,
and
its interest in internet governance should be seen as positive.
But
very few civil society organisations, particularly from the
developing world (or Global South) would feel comfortable in WEF
spaces. Many identify with the World Social Forum, the
alternative
forum which was established to challenge approaches to
globalization
and development promoted at the WEF. Many developing country
governments also do not feel that they have equal voice </font><font
color="#000000">at
the</font><font color="#000000"> WEF.</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Looking at the list
of participants at the NMI Scoping Meeting it is clear who is
present, and who is not. By far the majority of participants come
from Europe and North America. Business representation
dramatically
outweighs that of civil society.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">WEF events are seen
as grand events for the rich and powerful that have very little,
if
anything, to do with civil society and the daily lives and
struggles
of the general population This discomfort leads to questions and
concerns:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">There is a
general lack of diversity among the civil society participants
in most WEF events in general, and in this event – the NMI
Scoping Meeting - specifically. What will be done to remedy
this situation as the process continues?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Does WEF have
the capacity to establish something sustained, inclusive and
bottom up that can gradually lead the way in building the
legitimacy and inclusiveness needed to operationalise the
NETmundial outcomes at global, regional, and national levels?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">What experience
does WEF have at bridging the gap between those who hold power
and influence, and a civil society that has neither power nor,
frequently, influence?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Most the
pressing internet governance challenges of the moment involve
containing actions by governments and businesses to fragment
the internet (intentionally or unintentionally). For example,
insufficient data protection, and new challenges to protecting
user's rights, and business models which rely on data mining
practices which put these rights at risk? While business and
governments need to be part of these solutions, is a forum
dominated by them (the case for the WEF and thus far for the
NMI) likely to come up with solutions that challenges their
interests?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">How can WEF
help to integrate what the NETmundial stands for (public
interested, multistakeholder, democratic, and human rights
oriented internet governance) into the day to day running of
the internet in ways that will be felt by existing and future
users?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">What is the NMI
relationship to the IGF? Will it focus on strengthening it? Or
will it attempt to be complimentary? How can it guarantee that
it will not disrupt the work of thousands that has gone into
building the IGF over the last decade?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Will the NMI
stand for human rights and make them a priority in internet
governance?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>How will those developing country governments that currently
feel excluded and disaffected with multistakeholder internet
governance processes (and this includes both the NETmundial
and the IGF) be included and how will they be challenged to
change their behaviours with regard to, particularly, civil
society participation in national internet policy processes?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Will it approach capacity building as a process needed by the
developing world only? Will it look beyond attributing the
primary reason for the lack of support for multistakeholder
processes among developing country governments to lack of
capacity and knowledge? Or will it use capacity building is
often used as a bandaid, with rich countries proposing
resources/aid for multistakeholder processes as means of
securing political support at international processes? If
capacity, and its building, is to be defined by the north for
the south it will only reinforce existing inequalities in
power and will fail to strengthen multistakeholder processes
at either national or global levels.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Having pointed to our concerns, we also want to point to our
wishes. Since this meeting is happening, we wish it the greatest
success. We strongly support its goal of building support for a
strong IGF. We would be willing to assist the WEF during the next
six
months in trying to make this initiative a genuinely
multistakeholder
effort that pays heed to democratic and bottom-up processes with
outreach and accountability to the global stakeholder community.
APC
also believes that there is value in expanding the conversation to
include people who have heretofore been absent from the
discussion;
we realize that cooperation with the WEF is one way to build
awareness of critical issues and processes among those actors they
have an established relationship with. Broadening the range of
business voices involved in internet governance is needed. But
dominance of business voices in the internet governance ecosystem
is
not only not needed, it will destroy any chance that this
distributed, decentralised system has of being regarded as
legitimate
and focused on the public interest.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">APC insists that
greater transparency and inclusiveness going forward is vital. WEF
has committed to a six month period of consultations regarding
whether and how to establish a dedicated organizational structure
to
support the NMI going forward, whether or not connected to the
Forum.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc"
href="#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a></sup>
The next six months will determine the degree to which this effort
can reach the global community in all of its diversity in a manner
that is worthy of the brand NETMundial.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">28 August 2014</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym"
name="sdfootnote1sym" href="#sdfootnote1anc">1</a><a
href="http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance"
target="_top">http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance</a></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym"
name="sdfootnote2sym" href="#sdfootnote2anc">2</a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_1NetmundialInitiativeBrief.pdf">http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_1NetmundialInitiativeBrief.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym"
name="sdfootnote3sym" href="#sdfootnote3anc">3</a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_2NETmundialInitiativeFAQ.pdf">http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_2NETmundialInitiativeFAQ.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.4.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
p.sdfootnote { margin-left: 0.6cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 100% }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
a.sdfootnoteanc { font-size: 57% }
-->
</style>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a></pre>
</body>
</html>