<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">+1<br>
<br>
On 02/07/2014 02:06 PM, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR:
#000000">
<div>Happy to discuss this too Norbert – as you know I wrote
recently on list about the various hidden agendas that can
hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition
to multistakeholderism). I think mapping these agendas and
areas of self interest would be a good guide to strategy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this, but
in any case happy to engage.</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
moz-do-not-send="true"
title="anja@internetdemocracy.in"
href="mailto:anja@internetdemocracy.in">Anja Kovacs</a>
</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:16 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="genekimmelman@gmail.com"
href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com">Gene Kimmelman</a>
</div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="nb@bollow.ch" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">Norbert
Bollow</a> ; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">IGC</a>
; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="gurstein@gmail.com"
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">Michael Gurstein</a>
; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>
</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of
governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals
for Brazil summit - IG)</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 dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Norbert,<br>
<br>
Like Gene, I am always interested in engaging with new
people/organisations on these issues, so do please count
me in.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
</div>
Anja<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 7 February 2014 19:48, Gene
Kimmelman <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com"
target="_blank">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT:
1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc
1px solid">
<div dir="ltr">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. 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? A
different approach to advocacy than what most
activists/advocates have been practicing? 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....</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="h5">On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05
AM, Norbert Bollow <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"
target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px
0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div class="h5">I'm strongly in agreement
with Michael that we absolutely need for<br>
the design and discussion of governance
mechanisms to strongly take<br>
these realities of particular interests
(which are often in conflict<br>
with the public interest) explicitly into
consideration.<br>
<br>
How many people here (besides Michael and
myself) are interested in a<br>
discussion on that basis?<br>
<br>
If you're interested, please reply on-list
or off-list, but please do<br>
reply, so that I can ensure to include you
in whatever discussion is<br>
going to get organized. (I intend to
pursue discussion of this topic<br>
area outside of the BestBits and the IGC
mailing lists, hence the<br>
request to please reply.)<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Michael Gurstein <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"
target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> As I’m reading the various messages
and suggestions concerning Brazil<br>
> and following the discussion on this
list and others I’m struck by one<br>
> overwhelming observation…<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Folks here seem to be assuming that
whatever develops with respect to<br>
> Internet Governance (and their own
interventions) are taking place in<br>
> a world of benign and selfless actors
(stakeholders) whose only<br>
> interest is in the public good and
the well-being of the Internet.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Thus proposals for this type of
“decentralized” governance structure<br>
> and that proposal for the “management
of decision making through<br>
> MSism” all are making the completely
unwarranted and dare I say,<br>
> naïve and even dangerous assumption
that there are not significant,<br>
> well-funded, very smart and quite
likely unscrupulous forces looking<br>
> to insert positions that serve and
ensure the dominance of their own<br>
> corporate/national/institutional
interests into whatever emerges from<br>
> whatever process.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> It really is hard to take any of this
discussion very seriously<br>
> unless there is an attendant
discussion on what measures can/will be<br>
> taken to ensure that these forces do
not prevail… that these<br>
> processes are not captured and
subverted… i.e. what are the defensive<br>
> strategies and institutional
mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating<br>
> as part of whatever package we are
promoting.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Is no one in these CS discussions
taking into consideration the<br>
> overwhelming resources of wealth and
power that will be impacted by<br>
> whatever might emerge from these
discussions and the similarly<br>
> overwhelming temptation (even in some
cases the responsibility) to do<br>
> whatever it takes to twist the result
to support one’s own narrow<br>
> (corporate/national/institutional )
interests and what the<br>
> significance of this observation has
to be for these discussions and<br>
> their outputs.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> This isn’t paranoia or USA or
whatever bashing. This is simple common<br>
> sense.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden
and what he has been telling us?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> M<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>
> [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>]
On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs<br>
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014
6:43 AM<br>
> To: Anne Jellema<br>
> Cc: Mike Godwin (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG"
target="_blank">mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG</a>);
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com"
target="_blank">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>;<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org"
target="_blank">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive
proposals for Brazil summit - IG<br>
> governance<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Dear all,<br>
><br>
> I've been following this conversation
with great interest. A few<br>
> comments below:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne
Jellema <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:anne@webfoundation.org"
target="_blank">anne@webfoundation.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> /SNIP/<br>
><br>
> If we can figure out what goals we
agree on and that seem to require<br>
> some kind of global public action,
then in the spirit of form<br>
> following function, maybe the rather
daunting discussion on the best<br>
> institutional model(s) will become
easier to have. For example, once<br>
> we clarify the goals, we can think
harder about viable routes for an<br>
> international body or forum to make
an impact on them, which might be<br>
> different for different goals. Purely
through cultivating consensus<br>
> and setting norms? Through negotiated
agreement on globally<br>
> applicable but ultimately non-binding
regulatory models (a la ITU) or<br>
> legal principles (a la UN Convenant
on ESC Rights)? Through some kind<br>
> of WTO-style treaty body that wields
an enforcement mechanism and<br>
> sanctions? Through control of key
internet standards and resources (a<br>
> la ICANN)? Some combination of the
above? Or none of the above?!<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> One of the reasons the Internet
Democracy Project suggested a<br>
> decentralised model of Internet
governance is precisely because it<br>
> allows such a constant and ongoing
mapping of processes on goals (see<br>
> our proposal outlined here:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised"
target="_blank">http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised</a><br>
>
-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
It is<br>
> unlikely that one and the same
process can adequately address all<br>
> issues, and some issues might even
require a variety of<br>
> organisations/institutions to lead a
process together if that issue<br>
> is to be resolved adequately. Such an
approach also has the advantage<br>
> of making it possible to already move
on issues for which there is<br>
> wide agreement on the process,
without needing to wait for agreement<br>
> on the one-and-only-process that is
supposed to take care of all<br>
> issues for all time to come.<br>
><br>
> Importantly, and addressing some of
the concerns that Marilia and Ian<br>
> expressed earlier, it would also
allow to shape processes in each<br>
> case in such a way that the shifting
and changing power relations<br>
> among different groups can be taken
into account and whatever process<br>
> is decided on provides as level a
playing field as possible for the<br>
> different groups that have a stake in
that particular issue.<br>
><br>
> Also just still following up on a
question Marilia asked earlier, and<br>
> that I think wasn't answered yet:
most of us present in the meeting<br>
> that this document reports on thought
that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD<br>
> WG should not be making any
substantive decisions or produce any<br>
> concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on
what the most appropriate<br>
> process to handle a particular issue
would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD<br>
> WG suggests that a particular
institution takes the lead on setting a<br>
> process to resolve an issue into
motion, it is of course still up to<br>
> that institution to accept or reject
that request. This is the case<br>
> even in the current UN architecture:
the GA can only request other UN<br>
> bodies to take up a matter.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> Anja<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ---------- Forwarded message
----------<br>
> From: Marilia Maciel <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com"
target="_blank">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48<br>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive
proposals for Brazil summit - IG<br>
> governance<br>
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org"
target="_blank">Andrew@gp-digital.org</a>><br>
> Cc: "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi Andrew and all,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> After reading the document I was
willing to send a more carefully<br>
> written comment, but I believe it is
better to share thoughts<br>
> informally now than to hold back
ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> First of all, this is a very good and
useful document. You managed to<br>
> give the summary a good flow and you
provide both an overview of<br>
> inputs from respondents and
conclusions from the group who analyzed<br>
> them (which are also useful btw).
Some remarks I would initially have<br>
> are the following.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> - It is interesting that almost all
respondents mentioned imbalances<br>
> of power, insufficient diversity of
voices and other similar things<br>
> as "cases for governance reform". I
think that one conclusion from<br>
> that is that although we support the
idea of multistakeholder<br>
> participation, the way it has been
"lived" and implemented is not<br>
> what we wished for. This is important
to emphasize, because some<br>
> analysis that have been produced
recently argue that non-gov actors<br>
> were all univocally united around MS
all along. In fact, I think<br>
> many actors in CS have been pointing
out to these imbalances for a<br>
> long time, so in order to improve
multistaholderism, these demands<br>
> for inclusion should be the main ones
guiding the process of reform.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC
would produce outputs or just<br>
> identify the more adequate spaces to
deal with issues. I will assume<br>
> the first option is correct...<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> - I think that some of the proposals
of "distributed governance" that<br>
> you mapped overlook some important
points. If MIPC or MIPOC produce<br>
> recommendations and send them to
other organizations:<br>
><br>
> a) would they be obliged to take this
issue on their agenda?;<br>
><br>
> b) If they do take it, what is the
weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If<br>
> there is no weight, would we be
giving an additional incentive to,<br>
> for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text
about the Internet, in a<br>
> context that the MS opinion on the
subject would not count in WIPO?<br>
> What is the use of that, and how does
this differentiate governance<br>
> of the internet to traditional
international regimes?<br>
><br>
> c) Is there a procedure to make
other organizations reply back to<br>
> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that
issues fall on def ears?<br>
><br>
> d) the distributed proposals are all
based on a precondition:<br>
> improving the IGF. That seems a frail
model to me, if we dont know if<br>
> there will be a renewal of the
mandate or interest to continue the<br>
> forum (let's not forget the drama
before Bali).<br>
><br>
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF
needs resources. There is little<br>
> chance to produce good, focused
policy-oriented outcomes without a<br>
> very, very boosted and dedicated
staff and people who understand of<br>
> methodologies to deal with large
groups. Those who were also in the<br>
> IGF improvements WG heard, like I
did, that the IGF will not receive<br>
> additional resources from the UN. The
UN did not want to pay more and<br>
> the business and the technical
community were alligned against UN<br>
> public funding, taking the issue out
of the table. Are basing our<br>
> model of improved governance on the
existence of enough voluntary<br>
> funding to the IGF?<br>
><br>
> f) The option to harbor the
coordinating committee in CSTD was not<br>
> sufficiently discussed in the
document imo. Given the frailty of the<br>
> IGF and the fact that outcomes from
the coordinating body under CSTD<br>
> could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I
would look into that more carefully<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> - I don't understand why power grabs
were a concern on the UN<br>
> Committee model, but not so much on
distributed models. Less clear<br>
> processes are very prone to power
grabs, even to more opaque (and<br>
> harder to identify and fight) ones.
With that in mind, I particularly<br>
> emphasize the importance of your
argument that self-forming MS<br>
> processes are likely to disadvantage
those without power and<br>
> resources.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> - The idea of a UN committee model
does not seem to exclude the<br>
> possibility to create ad-hoc MS
working groups as necessary, so maybe<br>
> the argument that it would not have
expertise to deal with the<br>
> diversity of internet issues could be
more carefully explained.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> That is all for a start. Just sharing
some initial thoughts and<br>
> hoping we can continue the
discussions.<br>
><br>
> Thanks again for the good start<br>
><br>
> Marília<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Cheers<br>
><br>
> Anne<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike
Godwin (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG"
target="_blank">mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG</a>)<br>
> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mgodwin@internews.org"
target="_blank">mgodwin@internews.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew
about the need to have a clear,<br>
> targeted, and (ideally) short
substantive civil-society agenda going<br>
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost
don’t care what what the<br>
> specifics of that substantive agenda
are, but the timeline is<br>
> excruciatingly short, the window of
opportunity is limited, and if<br>
> want to take away something
substantive from Brazil we have to commit<br>
> to a substantive agenda now.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I’m not terribly troubled if someone
later says the agenda should be,<br>
> or should have been different. Brazil
is a unique opportunity, and it<br>
> will be shame if it goes to waste
because civil society focused more<br>
> on process and consensus than on
extracting substantive value from<br>
> the opportunity Brazil represents.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> —Mike<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on
the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits"
target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits"
target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br>
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/"
target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>
</div>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org">www.softwarefreedom.org</a>
Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126
(fax) +91-11-24323530
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.sflc.in">www.sflc.in</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>