Hi Robin,
thanks for your excellent analysis. I did follow the events only as a remote participant (so I do not have all information) but agree with most what you have said in the mail below. It is very helpful to see both the strength of the "big picture" and the weaknesses in some details. I also agree that the principle part is the big step forward. The roadmap part is more "stumbling" forward. But the whole process - compared with WSIS or WCIT - is encouraging from a civil society´s perspective.
Best wishes
wolfgang
Here is what is my conclusion (as a renmote participant) from the meeting. Unfortunately in German only.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/net-mundial-in-s-o-paulo-der-taegliche-kampf-um-die-freiheit-im-netz-12910313.html <http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/net-mundial-in-s-o-paulo-der-taegliche-kampf-um-die-freiheit-im-netz-12910313.html>
________________________________
Von: [log in to unmask] im Auftrag von Robin Gross
Gesendet: So 27.04.2014 03:44
An: [log in to unmask]; Izumi AIZU
Cc: Adam Peake; Stephanie Perrin; <[log in to unmask]> < NCSG List
Betreff: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1
A few thoughts on the outcome doc and Netmundial generally, after the benefit of a plane ride to process the experience. Overall, there are some truly amazing principles supported in the Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement that we as civil society should proud of and especially our representatives who got this achievement.
The Internet governance principles of human rights, democracy, equality, openness, transparency, accountability, decentralized, Internet as global resource to be managed in the public interest are all supported in the final outcome document. These are all truly amazing achievements and an important pivot point in the evolution of the global governance ecosystem.
Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless innovation, intermediary liability, net neutrality, and separation of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these issues were mentioned in the governance document itself, is a significant advancement (except for the ode to copyright). So on some key substantive policy issues, the document reflects a remarkable achievement, despite a few critical losses where civil society got out-lobbied, out-muscled, & out-manuevered in the last minute behind less transparent and less organized processes on the specific wording.
But the simple fact the govts and biz had to negotiate with civil society over key language (and wait in line to speak) is another rather remarkable step-forward. There was more transparency over the drafting and adoption of the document than there is in other global governance regimes where we can't see the drafting at all, since a few of us could watch. We now see the need for improved transparency in these key critical decision-making moments in this going forward. And the process frustrated and impeded civil society, who tends not be in current decision-making positions on these important process decisions.
I don't want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see the really great parts of this document, and that in many ways, this was a very positive step forward in the evolution of the Internet governance and Internet freedom.
Yes, civil society was under-represented on panels, in committees, and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - and we need to keep pushing on that point too; this doc supports "equality", so we've got our hook for that goal here too.
On balance, this document is a pretty good starting point for further discussions on Internet governance and its positive evolution.
My 2 cents,
Robin
On Apr 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
Thank you Stephanie and Adam for your clarifications.
I still have the "impression" that the last session was not quite as open as it could be.
Firstly, there was not announcement, or explanation, as to how the final document would be dealt by HLMC in advance, or even on the fly, for those who were in the Main Room.
Yes, it would be much better to have live streaming and scribed texts online for those who were not in the small drafting room.
I would say even in the small room, it was VERY difficult to figure out what exactly they are discussing unless you have good hearing ability and understanding of the English since they were not using the microphone and sometimes audiences making some noise.
It was semi transparent in my view.
I do not mean for criticism, but for lessons going forward.
More than 10 years ago, we had WSIS prep meeting in Tokyo and we insisted that Drafting session by governments plus civil society and private sector be open to all who want to participate. It worked well. We had big screen in front of all, and everyone could speak up once chair allow, there were some distinction between the official member of the drafting committee and others, but not much, In the end the result of this informal drafting committee was sent to the government only negotiation, which was open and transparent, but no-government stakeholders including IGOs could have no say.
We asked government people to "honor" the works of this multistakeholder draft document and in my view we got 85%, if not 90%. (could not get good language for Human rights and Freedom of Expression).
Now, after more than 10 years, we have, as I wrote, better online tool, much better working experience among CS members with other stakeholders, better recognition on CS and MSH to advance our work.
As Jeanette and Ian point out, we could have done better if we had better prepared and also better prepared on the fly.
But overall, I think civil society did a very good job, together with Brazilian host, but also I like to mention the other stakeholders, governments, business, tech and academic community also deserve the recognition together,
As we were discussing during the dinner right after the closure, we could and should understand some government folks who really had constraints under their mandate, therefore had to put their reservations on the record. And even so, I think their behaviors were not that disruptive, at the last stage, to honor Brazilian host and also all of us engaged there.
izumi
2014-04-27 2:30 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]>:
The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the time.
Adam
On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens.
> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open drafting sessions....this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome wasn't built in a day...
> Stephanie Perrin
> Cheers stephanie
> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU <[log in to unmask] <mailto:aizu@anr..org> > wrote:
>
>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible.
>>
>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process.
>>
>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to observers?
>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me).
>>
>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar event, to use the
>> online tool, I mean online Notepad.
>>
>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the text on the screen,
>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing
>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes.
>>
>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different rooms of the same
>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that make it transparent.
>>
>> Just a suggestion.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter <[log in to unmask]>:
>> and I should have added - thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event.
>>
>> From: Ian Peter
>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask] ; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1
>>
>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together - far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work.
>>
>> As regards the results - this was version 0.1 of this very interesting - and i think promising - version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating.
>>
>> As regards the outputs - as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that.
>>
>> But for now - there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job - ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done.
>>
>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> [log in to unmask]
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> [log in to unmask]
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>
>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>
>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>> Japan
>> * * * * *
>> << Writing the Future of the History >>
>> www.anr.org <http://www.anr.org/>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> [log in to unmask]
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> [log in to unmask]
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
--
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
* * * * *
<< Writing the Future of the History >>
www.anr.org <http://www.anr.org/>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
[log in to unmask]
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
|
