[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [HLMC] NETmundial draft outcome document

[Stephanie Perrin]

> From: Stephanie Perrin <forge at ca.inter.net>
> Date: April 9, 2014 4:48:29 PM EDT
> To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org NCSG-Policy" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Fwd: [HLMC] NETmundial draft outcome document
> 
> I am sharing with you my comments to the Netmundial.  Please do not forward further as I am supposed to be acting within the confidential space of the HLMC group.  However, given that the draft is now up on wikileaks, and I am accountable to you guys, I figured there is no harm in sharing my comments.  I note that the CCWG is studying the leaked document.  I hope you agree with the basic tone and content.  Various others have done a wholesale job on the document, including our own Fadi and Tarek, so I restrained myself from repeating their points.  I understand that the business community also commented on the Fadi draft.  The lady from the EC, Kroes, did a great job, so she got a little shout-out.
> What a process....
> I had already told them they needed to state a clear purpose for the document, and Jeannette Hoffman seconded that and came in with some excellent words from the recent UN declaration (dec, 2013) and from the IGF. 
> And I am dead serious about kicking our maturity level up a notch.  We need more accountability and transparency, and we need to start some method of ensuring the bona fides of whoever is representing us at these meetings.  And we need stable, secure, accountable funding mechanisms. 
I have written to some of you about my concerns regarding the Co-chair of the meeting, who was not chosen by Civil Society.  Whatever the credentials this person might have, the process was not following the multistakeholder bottom up process.  However, I learned today that the same is true for the Business Co-chair, and not only that, he is not responding to the business caucus.  I find this to be odd. 

Please let me know any comments you may have, I heard that the final draft will be posted on the 11th, prior to the meeting, and there will be no communique after the meeting, so I am not quite sure why we are all killing ourselves to get to Brazil.
Best wishes,  
>> 
>> 
>> :-)
>> Steph
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>> Date: April 9, 2014 4:37:48 PM EDT
>>> To: Daniel Fink <daniel at netmundial.br>
>>> Cc: <hlmc at netmundial.br>, Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida <virgilio.almeida at mct.gov.br>, "Demi Getschko" <demi at cgi.br>, Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [HLMC] NETmundial draft outcome document
>>> 
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>> I join in congratulating you on a difficult task done rather quickly.  I attach my few comments to your initial draft, recognizing that you will now have an equally difficult task compiling the feedback you have received.  
>>> I would reiterate a few points that have been made in the dialogue online, and in other submissions. 
>>> 	*	It would be good to elaborate on the purpose of the document, as Jeannette has organized in greater detail
>>> 	*	I would urge you to start with human rights, as indeed you have, and retain them as explicit goals, as deliverables.  An information society that fails to get explicit and concrete about how it delivers human rights has only created a fully transparent populace.
>>> 	*	I have made a note in the report on the need to separate privacy from surveillance.  Data protection rarely protects the individual from state surveillance, whether their own state or somebody else's.  I am therefore uncomfortable conflating the two.  We need a separate, open conversation in the Information Society, on how national security matters ought to be 		managed, in a way that respects to the maximum possible, the human rights of the individual, and the democratic ideals of the state.  This will be a hard problem, and perhaps one that we need not attempt to address here.  Let us focus on the privacy rights of the individual, the obligations of service providers, and the need to build a technical system that 			facilitates both of these aspects of data protection first.   If you wish to address surveillance, it needs to be unpacked separately, including access to private sector systems and how it meets the rule of law, including transparency and data protection requirements.
>>> 	*	I am deeply concerned that we speak of a multi-stakeholder model, yet we have not really defined it.  I would be happy if we set ourselves the task, in the roadmap, to meet again, consult our stakeholders, and fully define what the next generation of the 
>>> 		"multistakeholder" model is.  I volunteer my time at ICANN, so I am familiar with how that model works, and I think it works pretty well, with room for improvement.  I have also volunteered in other civil society organizations, and on international standards bodies for many years.  I believe there are several persistent problems with multi-stakeholder 				approaches, many of which you mention in the report, which are far from solved:
>>> 		*	transparency and accountability
>>> 		*	funding, particularly for groups such as civil society and academics, who depend on outside agencies for support.  This creates an invisible hand.  If the multi-stakeholder model is to work, truly independent funding, established, predictable, and dispensed in a measureable and accountable way, needs to be developed.
>>> 		* 	capacity building, particularly for players who are not well represented at the moment, such as those in developing countries
>>> 		*	democratic processes.  We are still in growing pains in most organizations, we need an explicit recognition of this, and a commitment to work on fully transparent, accountable systems of delegation.  We cannot let people self appoint, and stakeholder groups need to figure out how to set up transparent and accountable processes to choose their 					representatives.
>>> 		There is no perfect system of human government.  The Internet has grown rapidly, partly due to the experimentation that has been demonstrated in its governance bodies.  Let's not lose the experimentation, but let's get more transparency, more accountability, more fairness and equity, more dedication to human rights and development as the reason we do 		this.   Funding will be a key issue, I suggest we address this explicitly at the outset.  Who wants to pay for multi-stakeholderism?
>>> 	I agree very strongly with the submission that Neelie Kroes made today.  Recognizing how difficult the task you have taken on is, and thanking you for all your hard work,  I do believe we need to force ourselves to start some of the hard discussions, and have a roadmap and timetable for doing it.  I will certainly commit to going back to my stakeholders in Civil Society, and ask them to kick our maturity level up a notch.  We need to make the multi-stakeholder model work.  As someone who spent their whole career in government, much of it working internationally, I have no illusions as to how difficult this is, regardless of the structures we work in and the humans we work with.  There is tremendous goodwill at the moment to make this work, starting at Netmundial, we need sustained effort to make it concrete. 
>>> 
>>> Congratulations on all your hard work, and I look forward to further collaboration at the meeting!
>>> 
>>> 

>>> 
>>> On 2014-04-03, at 6:36 PM, Daniel Fink wrote:
>>> 
>>>> <NETmundial draft outcome document_April_3_EMC_to_HLMC.docx>
>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140409/22d1c50d/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NETmundial draft outcome document_April_3_EMC_to_HLMCsp.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 53607 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140409/22d1c50d/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140409/22d1c50d/attachment-0003.html>