<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body >Well said! <br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <br>Date: 02/02/2014 2:51 PM (GMT-05:00) <br>To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew@gp-digital.org>,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel@gmail.com> <br>Cc: bestbits@lists.bestbits.net <br>Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance <br> <br><br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<div>I wonder if there is another agenda we need to address here.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The dominant models that exist in similar industries, and which I believe
are the real battles going on in the world of internet governance, are between
governmental control and industry self regulation (aka unregulated industry
dominance.) I think we need to address this and make clear that industry
self-regulation with no governmental controls at all is not an appropriate
pattern for internet development. Only in this context do I think can we have a
decent conversation about multistakeholderism. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask to aid
industry dominance with no governmental involvement whatsoever. And here
the dominant industry players often find willing supporters in the technical
community. I think civil society needs to be clear that, if it supports
multistakeholderism, it is not giving support to no governmental involvement at
all or to unregulated industry dominance. I think this is a real debate we have
to have.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all stakeholders
have equal power in this – civil society arguments do not carry the weight of
the large internet corporations, and to pretend that ms-ism somehow changes this
imbalance is either naive or deliberately misleading.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way the agenda
is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles for governance, and this
word multistakeholderism is going to be front and centre. I think we need to
unwrap it a little and state clearly that the real issues going on are between
governmental and industry control, neither of which of itself is of itself a
satisfactory model.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That’s just some thoughts which I wonder if we could include here.
Elsewhere I think we need to have the larger debate about the mask of ms-ism,
but I think also in this paper we should at least mention the battle between
governmental control and industry control and how ms-ism is being used as a
diversion and cover-up for a more substantial issue.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ian Peter</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<div style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a title="Andrew@gp-digital.org" href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org">Andrew Puddephatt</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 03, 2014 1:52 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="mariliamaciel@gmail.com" href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com">Marilia Maciel</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<div>Thanks Marilia</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’m back online now and picking up on my 430 e-mails so apologies to those
who are waiting for a response from me.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are good reflections – my sense from them is that you have questions
about a distributed governance model in that to may not be clear/purposeful
enough to address the weaknesses in the current arrangements – is that a fair
summary of what you’re saying? Or am I over interpreting?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think we shared your view that existing multi-stakeholderism has not
provided corrections to imbalances of power – the real question is whether the
move to a more state based system of governance would provide such a corrective
or whether it would simply accelerate making the internet a geo-political
battlefield (personally I suspect we are already there). In looking for a
more dispersed governance model we were looking for a way of facilitating the
input of a range of public interest views to counter the growing voices calling
for state sovereignty over the internet. But I’d be the first to say that
there are no perfect solutions in our current climate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’ve given the 6th as the deadline for final comments and I’l try and
process them after that and get back to people after that</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Andrew</div>
<div> </div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; COLOR: black; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From: </span>Marilia Maciel <<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>><br><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Date: </span>Wednesday, 22 January 2014 22:18<br><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To: </span>andrew Puddephatt <<a href="mailto:andrew@gp-digital.org">andrew@gp-digital.org</a>><br><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc: </span>"<bestbits@lists. net>" <<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><br><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject: </span>Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals
for Brazil summit - IG governance<br></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Hi Andrew and all,
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>- 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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- 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...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- 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: </div>
<div>a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; </div>
<div>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? </div>
<div>c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? </div>
<div>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). </div>
<div>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?</div>
<div>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</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- 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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>- 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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
can continue the discussions.</div>
<div>Thanks again for the good start</div>
<div>Marília</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org" target="_blank">Andrew@gp-digital.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif">
<div>Hi everyone </div>
<div> </div><span>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<div class="im"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From: </span>Marianne Franklin
<<a href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk</a>><br><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Date: </span>Thursday, 16 January 2014
15:57<br></div><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To: </span>andrew Puddephatt
<<a href="mailto:andrew@gp-digital.org" target="_blank">andrew@gp-digital.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>" <</div></span></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></span></div></div></div></body>