Great summary, Robin.

 

This isn't a black and white issue. From a philosophical standpoint I doubt many of us are comfortable with participation in an institution created by the nice folks who run the WEF. I also question what ICANN is doing pushing this project, one that goes far beyond ICANN's responsibility for  names and numbers. We all are aware of Fadi's love of all things Davos, but raising his profile there should not be done at the expense of maintaining ICANN's limited remit.

 

That said, if it is going to happen anyway it's probably best to be involved (while, conversely, opposing ICANN's role in creating the NMI) provided CS is allowed to select its own representatives. In no way should we participate if the NMI secretariat is involved in the selection of specific stakeholders. Bottom up is something the WEF will have trouble with. If they can cut against their elitist instincts and accept a more egalitarian selection process for CS reps that we can accept then I'd be inclined to participate. It would be a good chance to push our agenda to elites who may, in fact, be receptive to our ideas but are only now involved in IG due to the nature of those who are organising the forum. 

 

Ed

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:15:29 -0800
Subject: Re: UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE

Folks,

 

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).

 

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.  

 

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.

 

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.  

 

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 in practice - not just words - live up the NetMundial principles of bottom-up governance, openness, transparency, accountability, etc.

 

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.

 

Thanks,

Robin

 

FOR INVOLVEMENT

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.

The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out in practice, would create a credible and open initiative

There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us forward on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions

Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society



AGAINST INVOLVEMENT

The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance and this could become that

ISOC has withdrawn

Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society

This initiative has a track record of poor communication

 

Not bottom-up or transparent so far

 

 

 

On Nov 17, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

 

Statement from the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) from today.   CSCG is comprised of the Internet Governance civil society networks of NCSG, APC, Best Bits, JustNet, Diplo Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus, and Civicus.  - Robin

 

UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.

 

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.

 

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.