<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<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><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A 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 title=genekimmelman@gmail.com
href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com">Gene Kimmelman</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=nb@bollow.ch href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">Norbert
Bollow</A> ; <A title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">IGC</A> ; <A
title=gurstein@gmail.com href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">Michael Gurstein</A> ;
<A 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 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 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
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
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net"
target=_blank>bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</A><BR>> [mailto:<A
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 href="mailto:mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG"
target=_blank>mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG</A>); <A
href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com"
target=_blank>genekimmelman@gmail.com</A>;<BR>> <A
href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target=_blank>jeremy@ciroap.org</A>; <A
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 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
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
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
href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org"
target=_blank>Andrew@gp-digital.org</A>><BR>> Cc: "<A
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target=_blank>bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</A>" <<A
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
href="mailto:mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG"
target=_blank>mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG</A>)<BR>> <<A
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
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target=_blank>bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</A>.<BR>To unsubscribe or change
your settings, visit:<BR> <A
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
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</A>.<BR>To
unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<BR> <A
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
href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/"
target=_blank>www.internetdemocracy.in</A><BR></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.<BR>To unsubscribe or change your settings,
visit:<BR>
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>