<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Anja, dear all,<br><br>I'm very late in replying to this thread but I had taken note I *did* want to reply, as there are some important points being raised here.<br><br></div>For the record, I'm not speaking <u>on behalf</u> of the European Commission right now, although most of what I am saying is based on the official position of the European Commission on Internet governance, as recently adopted on 12.2.2014 (Communication on Internet Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of the Internet, available at <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2014:0072:FIN:EN:HTML">http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2014:0072:FIN:EN:HTML</a>).<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Anja Kovacs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anja@internetdemocracy.in" target="_blank">anja@internetdemocracy.in</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Michael,<br><br></div>My apologies for the gaps in my replies, it's been a challenge keeping up with email this month, but I did still want to respond. Please see inline. <br>
<div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Hi Anja,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Inline…<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Anja Kovacs [mailto:<a href="mailto:anja@internetdemocracy.in" target="_blank">anja@internetdemocracy.in</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:03 AM</span></p><div><br><b>To:</b> michael gurstein<br><b>Cc:</b> Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; <,<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>,<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG<u></u><u></u></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Dear Michael,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">When I talk about decentralisation, this is not simply a vague notion, but a reference to a vision and plan which already consists of several components and is slowly gaining more and more detail. The end goal of this work is to have quite a detailed map. The challenge will be to make sure that everyone has access to that map, but at least (if not more) to the extent that people can find their way in the UN system, I would think we can make sure that people can find their way in this ecosystem as well. <span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">[MG>] I’d be very interested to see this… However, I think it is important to distinguish between decentralization of processes and decentralization of power… the first without the second is simply making busywork… my feeling is that much of discussion that you are pointing to is concerned with this …<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Decentralizing/deconcentrating centralized power comes not through decentralizing processes but through challenging and contesting for power – a situation where “decentralization” of one’s forces would seem to be a recipe for failure… </span></i></b></p>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div>[AK]: Yes, that is a good point. But at the same time, I would presume that you would also not want that centralised force to be a concentrated one (as in, limited to a very few players who then ultimately become extremely powerful, be these players from civil society or another stakeholder group). Any suggestions then how to strengthen the force, but not the concentration?<br>
</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm very much looking forward to the (interim) results of Anja's (and I guess other people's?) work. The notion of a "map" and ways to navigate it were already raised a number of years ago - including by Switzerland and the European Union - at one of the various Geneva-based preparatory meetings. The European Commission discussed it for some time with EU Member States. It seems to me that there is quite some consensus for this idea.<br>
<br></div><div>This is also one of the rationales behind an initiative that the European Commission has been working on for some time, i.e. the idea of a Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO). I think I have already bothered people extensively about this, so I will not elaborate too much; this is simply to say that that in my view it is not sufficient to "build a map", one also has to design the tools to make sure that the map is updated. In my experience sustainability has to be in-built in any approach for it to succeed.<br>
<br></div><div>(And by the way and before people jump up and down, GIPO is not a new idea per se and certainly took inspiration, consciously or unconsciously, by many people / organisations which are active in the Internet (governance) space).<br>
<br></div><div>On the issue of decentralisation of process / decentralisation of power, I think it is an important distinction to make; and we would be naive not to recognise that an often-used tactic by everyone who has power in a particular moment (which is not only governments or businesses, by the way - I saw the same technique used by many NGOs, sometimes for meritorious, sometimes for rather nefarious reasons) is to create "yet another discussion".</div>
<div><b></b></div><div><br></div><div>I think a certain dose of duplication and "let's create something new" is unavoidable as the importance of the Internet grows and is recognised as such. I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing - it can also functions a a counter-weight to the "old boys' / girls' club" mentality. <br>
<br></div><div>Call me naive, but I do think that if the right tools to gather / process / use information are in place, more diversification becomes a tool for progressive change, not for ossification.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">
In fact, to the extent that that ecosystem would actually build on the existing UN system (which is an integral part of what we propose), this decentralisation should even make it easier for groups that are not yet involved in Internet governance but that are already involved in particular debates at the global level to find their way to relevant internet governance debates, as those debates would then often come to the venues in which they are already working, rather than these groups having to go and look for these venues and debates. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">[MG>] Potentially interesting but again I’d like to see the details</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div>[AK]: Work in progress... <br></div><div class=""><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br>Civil servants do not often get to ask this question - we are usually on the receiving end of (irate) requests to this effect - so pardon me if I ask: any Estimated Time of Arrival? :)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Contrary to your claim, such a system, as we also explain in the short paper on our ideas which I have shared earlier, would actually benefit developing country actors - be it governments or civil society - in particular, as for us knowing beforehand that a particular process is going to actually address a particular concern is a far more important factor in deciding whether to invest very limited resources than it is for many developed country actors. <span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">[MG>] Potentially true particularly if there was something more than busywork processes involved in these multiple venues, but again need details… (there were none in the short paper that you pointed to, which was part of the reason for my reacting as I did… <u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">As an example, the challenge in the WIPO discussions I believe, was to create a real venue for LDC participation and get away from the multiple empty technical and narrowly focused discussions that (were deliberately designed?) to sap the LDC energies and resources… it was only when the LDC’s insisted on a specific framework to address their issues that any real progress (from their perspective) was achieved..<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div>[AK]: But isn't this then something that can be done in multiple Internet governance venues as well? As I have said before, I really think we have to move away from thinking of the Internet as an issue, to thinking of it as a space. That is an argument in favour of recognising different venues as being the appropriate places to discuss and decide on different Internet governance issues. But arguing in favour of such decentralisation doesn't stop us from also arguing in favour of an overarching framework that guides both the development of this architecture in itself and the processes that take place in the various different segments of it. <br>
</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure you'll be happy to read this, Anja (just joking :) but this combination, i.e. (1) moving to issue-based, rather than organisation-based, approaches; on the basis of (2) collectively developed, rules-based frameworks for engagement, looks quite similar to the position of the European Commission as expressed in its Communicaton of 12.2.2014 (see beginning of my email for references). E.g.: "<i>Stronger interactions between stakeholders involved
in Internet governance should be fostered via issue-based dialogues, instead of
through new bodies. This would allow relevant stakeholders to address specific
challenges across structural and organisational boundaries. Such arrangements
could be inspired by the distributed architecture of the Internet which should
serve as a model for better interactions between all parties.</i>"<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
<div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
In fact, increasingly I am wondering whether, if we want multistakeholderism to work, we maybe need something like a Constitution for multistakeholder processes - not just a set of principles, but a more detailed, binding document that outlines, for example, what kind of criteria a particular participant (or at least non-government participant) needs to fulfil in order to participate in a particular kind of process (and criteria might be a little more open-ended and flexible for some processes, more stringent for others, possibly guided by the nature of the outcomes of the process in question). If there isn't a document that binds us on these things, I can't really see at the moment how we can avoid capture. <br>
</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree - but, perhaps more importantly, the European Commission also does agree that more clarity on what we mean by "multistakeholder processes" would be helpful. See in particular section 5 of the above-mentioned Communication.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Best,<br><br>Andrea<br></div></div></div></div>