<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I think this is a difficult question. I agree with much of what
Nothias posted in his response to Jeremy (removing the rancor of
that exchange and the politics of the various groups, much of what
he says about the sorry situation of civil society appears to me to
ring true.) On the one hand, we will be in a pickle if the thing
matures and develops and other, more docile groups jump in to play a
role in Internet governance. On the other hand, it would be foolish
to ignore the promise of potential allies like ISOC boycotting. <br>
So my vote at the moment is to reach out to Harmut and company, and
find out what they are planning. Why not use the Brazilian hosting
of IGF to try to bring the IGF to the next level of maturity, where
it is better funded, where there are more concrete long range
projects, etc. There is no rush to decide. Declare a fence-sitting
position for the moment, don't be pushed into someone else's
deadlines. Keep asking questions to stall the clock....it is not
like we are getting great answers so far. Lets find out where the
money is and who controls it, something that I think is important.
AS I have indicated, from a privacy perspective, what the WEF has
been doing on "Big Data" has me deeply concerned. It is dangerous
to get close to that project, since it is fundamentally opposed to a
human rights approach to personal data. And I have seen nothing to
persuade me that in fact this move to take over "netmundial" is not
simply the next phase of that project. <br>
My two cents for what it is worth.<br>
cheers Stephanie<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-11-18, 13:15, Robin Gross
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:345895E2-8BDA-410C-A2E3-2189FD1B2D2F@ipjustice.org"
type="cite">Folks,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Should NCSG participate in the NetMundial Initiative? We
are still waiting for confirmation from its secretariat as to
whether or not civil society will be allowed to select all of
its own representatives to the "coordination council" or if the
secretariat will reserve the right to select some of civil
society's representatives for us. (The NMI secretariat have
civil society orgs in mind who will be bring publicity and good
PR to their project, but don't actually engage on these issues).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In my mind this is a critical question, and since the
secretariat has been unwilling to confirm this yet, I remain
skeptical of the initiative and our "legitimization" of it;
however if the response from the secretariat is that they will
play a "hands off" role in terms of civil society
representatives, I'll be happy to change my mind. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is important that this initiative, in practice, live up
the Netmundial principles (including stakeholders select their
own representatives). If the NMI organizers cannot confirm that
much, then it is just an appropriation of the NetMundial label
without the principles that we worked very hard in Sao Paulo to
achieve.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At this point, while we wait for clarification from NMI's
secretariat, each of the groups in the CSCG are asked to
consider if they believe they should participate in the
initiative. So I ask this of NCSG. JustNet Coalition has
already decided against it. Importantly, ISOC has said it will
not participate in the initiative or its coordination council
because it lacks openness, bottom-up orientation,
accountability, and transparency in its structure and
operations. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We've heard that Fadi is touting CSCG's letter to the
secretariat asking to select the civil society representatives
as evidence of civil society's support for his initiative and as
"legitimizing" the NMI. What Fadi doesn't understand yet,
however, is that our sending the letter requesting to be
involved is not what "legitimizes" NMI. It is whether NMI
actually "walks the talk" and permits civil society to, in fact,
make our own determinations for who should represent us - and <b><i>in
practice</i></b> - not just words - live up the NetMundial
principles of bottom-up governance, openness, transparency,
accountability, etc.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A few Pro & Con arguments below. Please send your
thoughts. I'll update as soon as we have some news one way or
the other from the NMI secretariat.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Robin</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
FOR INVOLVEMENT<br>
<br>
With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change,
and IGF as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take
decisions and again no will to change, there is no credible
venue to initiate action on non technical issues or issues not
within the remit of Istar organisations These would include
surveillance issues, human rights issues, net neutrality issues,
to name a few.<br>
<br>
The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if
carried out in practice, would create a credible and open
initiative<br>
<br>
There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us
forward on a range of issues not covered by existing
institutions<br>
<br>
Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil
society<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
AGAINST INVOLVEMENT<br>
<br>
The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet
governance and this could become that<br>
<br>
ISOC has withdrawn<br>
<br>
Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil
society<br>
<br>
This initiative has a track record of poor communication</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Not bottom-up or transparent so far</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Nov 17, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Robin Gross wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Calibri;
font-size: 16px; ">Statement from the Civil Society
Coordination Group (CSCG) from today. </span><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Calibri;
font-size: 16px; "> CSCG is comprised of the Internet
Governance civil society networks of NCSG, APC, Best
Bits, JustNet, Diplo Foundation, Internet Governance
Caucus, and Civicus. - Robin</span>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</span></font><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; "><span>
<div><b>UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET
MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.</b></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Please note that Internet Governance Civil
Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in
the new Net Mundial initiative is still under
consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI
Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting
that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection
of civil society representatives in a coordinated
bottom up manner, rather than these decisions
being made by the Transitional Council (which has
no civil society representation). This is still
under discussion; however, we do not yet have a
proposal with sufficient clarity for member
coalitions to be able to decide on participation
or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already
determined it will not participate, other members
are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a
bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining
civil society representatives before making any
final decisions on participation.</div>
<div> </div>
</span></span>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; ">Our
letter to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional
Council in no way signifies that any or all CS
organisations have made a final decision on whether to
engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or
to participate in the NMI process.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; "><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; "><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>