[bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

Fri Feb 7 10:09:20 EST 2014

Gene,

Inline

From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:19 PM
To: Norbert Bollow
Cc: IGC; Michael Gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re:
substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to
promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in
engaging with you on this. 

[MG>] good

But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that this lens on IG process or
principles has been lacking from the process so far.  So maybe you can
explain -- is it that you have a different theory of how CS can/should seek
to become more powerful?

[MG>] my point was not addressed to the relative status of CS, a subject on
which I have, as you know quite divergent perspectives
 rather my point was
concerning the recommendations that CS is making/advocating for
 Given my
observations (and dare I say experience) with MSism in action, the ease (and
cheapness) by means of which a MS process could be captured or subverted
seems to me to be obvious and something that any responsible advocate for
MSism would need to be very concerned about and ensure that the strongest of
defensive measures were in place before any reliance was placed on these
processes.  And of course, similarly with other positions such as
decentralization where again the possibilities of capture through the
application of concentrated efforts and relatively minor financial resources
would seem to me to be quite evident.

 A different approach to advocacy than what most activists/advocates have
been practicing? 

[MG>] see above
 but not including concerns for defending outcomes from
capture and subversion would seem to me to be naïve and foolhardy at the
minimum

 I'm sure many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about
how to obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all
the time....

[MG>] I must say I have seen little evidence of that perhaps you could point
me in that direction.

As a case in point, the ease with which a framework (1net) with no
transparent or accountable provenance was able to inveigle itself into a
position of centrality in various significant MS discussions/deliberations;
the manner in which a Summary of the discussions was prepared again
without any transparent or accountable provenance; and further the shift of
the discussion from an open e-list to a registration only set of forums,
the structuring of which again was done without any transparent or
accountable provenance; and all with no pushback of any substance from
Civil Society (including dare I say, exploration of matters such as  who
actually wrote the summary and who paid for this and the forum website);
hardly gives confidence in the effectiveness or willingness to intervene of
those who ponder (this) all the time including of course, the Civil
Society notables that 1Net arranged to have selected for inclusion in its
Steering Committee.

But maybe I missed something.

M

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take
these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict
with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.

How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
discussion on that basis?

If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
request to please reply.)

Greetings,
Norbert

Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> As Im reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil
> and following the discussion on this list and others Im struck by one
> overwhelming observation

>
>
>
> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
> Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in
> a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only
> interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.
>
>
>
> Thus proposals for this type of decentralized governance structure
> and that proposal for the management of decision making through
> MSism all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say,
> naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant,
> well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking
> to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
> corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
> whatever process.
>
>
>
> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
> unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be
> taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail
 that these
> processes are not captured and subverted
 i.e. what are the defensive
> strategies and institutional mechanisms that we (CS) are advocating
> as part of whatever package we are promoting.
>
>
>
> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
> whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly
> overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do
> whatever it takes to twist the result to support ones own narrow
> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the
> significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and
> their outputs.
>
>
>
> This isnt paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
> sense.
>
>
>
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> To: Anne Jellema
> Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
> jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
> comments below:
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> /SNIP/
>
> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require
> some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form
> following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best
> institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once
> we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an
> international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be
> different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus
> and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
> applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or
> legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind
> of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and
> sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a
> la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!
>
>
>
> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it
> allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see
> our proposal outlined here:
>
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
> -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
> unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
> issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
> organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue
> is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage
> of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is
> wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement
> on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
> issues for all time to come.
>
> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
> expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each
> case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations
> among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process
> is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the
> different groups that have a stake in that particular issue.
>
> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and
> that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting
> that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD
> WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any
> concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate
> process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD
> WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
> process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to
> that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case
> even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN
> bodies to take up a matter.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> Hi Andrew and all,
>
>
>
> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully
> written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts
> informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
>
>
>
> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to
> give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of
> inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed
> them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have
> are the following.
>
>
>
> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances
> of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things
> as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from
> that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder
> participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not
> what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some
> analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors
> were all univocally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think
> many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a
> long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands
> for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>
>
>
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
> identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume
> the first option is correct...
>
>
>
> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that
> you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
> recommendations and send them to other organizations:
>
> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
>
> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If
> there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to,
> for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a
> context that the MS opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO?
> What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance
> of the internet to traditional international regimes?
>
> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
>
> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
> improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if
> there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the
> forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
>
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
> chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a
> very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of
> methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the
> IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive
> additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and
> the business and the technical community were alligned against UN
> public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our
> model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
> funding to the IGF?
>
> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
> sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the
> IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD
> could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
>
>
>
> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
> Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear
> processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and
> harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly
> emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS
> processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and
> resources.
>
>
>
> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe
> the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the
> diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.
>
>
>
> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
> hoping we can continue the discussions.
>
> Thanks again for the good start
>
> Marília
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
> <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost dont care what what the
> specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is
> excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if
> want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit
> to a substantive agenda now.
>
>
>
> Im not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be,
> or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it
> will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more
> on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from
> the opportunity Brazil represents.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140207/95fec62d/attachment.htm>