[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Feb 4 04:27:16 EST 2015
On Wednesday 04 February 2015 02:09 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Excellent post Anriette, I agree on all points. Guilt by association
> with those advocating for different interests is not a path to mutual
> understanding and consensus, irrespective of whether it is
> pro-multistakeholder people criticizing pro-intergovernemental people
> or vice versa. We should be trying to make both kinds of
> institutional arrangements work better from a CS standpoint, and the
> only way to do that is to engage.
>
> The one key bit where I disagree with Sean is the notion, also invoked
> this morning by David, that multistakeholder agenda setting and debate
> is fine but actual decisions and formally binding agreements must be
> intergovernmental. This is simply not how it works now in large areas
> of global IG, and to me at least it is literally inconceivable that an
> intergovernmental monopoly on decisions pertaining to names, numbers,
> technical standards, network security, e-commerce and other bits would
> have produced better results in the past or will happen and do so in
> the future.
Just to avoid making it an either-or scenario and allow that to be used
to justify this one governance form (MSism), generally and universally,
over the other (representative political decision making), let me
clarify how some of us see the complex range of decision making
requirements for issues and subjects ranging from the highly technical
to the very social, and a range of issues/ subjects in between.
One can simplify and say that there are two basic principles to be
followed in a democracy, which are as follows, in a descending hierarchy
of importance.
1. For any issue that is of a public nature, its decision making process
should be democratic.
2. Subject to the above, the extent of technical expertise required for
decision making has to be adequately provided for in any decision making
process. This will vary from one type of issue to another.
(I like the definition of technical that someone mentioned as things
that most people do not understand well... As time passes, many of the
technical thing become increasingly social...)
For issues and subjects that are quite social, and their larger
structures and implications commonly understood, these are to be
directly subject to representative political decision-making in any
democracy, while of course these structures will have the necessary
bureaucratic and expertise support, and of the processes of
participatory democracy.
For such issues that are admittedly quite technical, and require
considerable expertise, it is often necessary to develop committed
decision making structures that are dominated by experts. How and which
experts get to make decisions need to be an appropriately 'sound', even
if not a fully political, process.
Further, any such technical decision making process, even while shielded
from ad hoc interference from what could be ill-informed political
structures, require some kind of rules based, arms length, political
oversight, to ensure conformity both of the decision making structures
and their outcomes to the wider public interest.
This still leaves unresolved who will decide whether an issue is of
technical nature or a political one. As far as possible, this should be
done in a rules based manner, but if found impossible to do so it would
be subject to a political decision, the representative political
decision making structures being always higher than the technical ones
as per the mentioned hierarchy in the above cited principles.
Bill, you mention a range of issues, which are of a very different
nature on the technical to social-political spectrum, and will therefore
require different appropriate decision making mechanisms. I dont think
it is good to mix them to make a point in favour of one kind of
governance structure over another.
I for instance am happy with the existing CIR governance system if it is
put in an appropriate relationship with a rules based and arms- length
political oversight system, which is globally democratic, in being
representative -political. On the other hand, I cannot see how issues
of e-commerce can be decided by any system other than which is directly
political -democratic- representative . The requirements of decision-
making about global e-commerce are very different from those of say
numbers allocation.
> So some of us try to work in the relevant multistakeholder spaces and
> make them better by inter alia attenuating the levels of ‘capture’ by
> powerful interests. We win some and more often we lose some, just
> like in intergovernmental bodies.
As discussed above, we need to work across a range of different
combinations of MS and gov based decision making structures, and not
speak of one against the other.... Whether some arrangement is better
than another *can only be spoken of and argued for in specific contexts*
and as referring to specific kinds of issues, and not generally, as you
do here.
parminder
> But as Woody Allen said, 80 percent of life is just showing up.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
>> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all (apologies for long message)
>>
>> Thanks to Sean for his positive message. I agree with him that "Its possible to plausibly
>> stake out a lot more common ground" between- he quotes from Avri's message -"those who support
>> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and
>> those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
>> public policy".
>>
>> At least one way of achieving this is to avoid the tendency to posit dichotomies - for
>> exampleto say (and it has been said more than once on this list)that
>> civil society groups who work for the respect and promotion of human
>> rights on the internet have abandoned the struggle for social
>> justice.
>>
>> There are many people in civil society broadly
>> that work for both. Human rights comprises civil and political rights
>> and economic*and* social rights. At the level of people's
>> everyday reality these rights are indivisible from one another and
>> from social justice. The struggle for gender equality is a struggle
>> for both. And without the right to free expression, and without a
>> free media, it is impossible for people to speak out against economic
>> policies and political practice that deepens social injustice.
>>
>>
>> In South Africa the only reason why we are still
>> able to talk about social injustice, and government policies that
>> entrench social inequality is because we still have freedom of
>> expression - something that did not exist here until after the demise
>> of apartheid.
>>
>>
>> Efforts by the South African government to limit
>> press freedom, and increase the State's ability to keep secrets, are
>> constant and both direct and indirect, but they are resisted by all
>> other than the political class. All you need to do is to look at
>> http://www.r2k.org.za/ to see how interlinked social justice and
>> human rights struggles are in South Africa. And I am sure this is not
>> that different in most other parts of the world.
>>
>>
>> Respect for human rights is part of what is
>> needed to create more equal societies and a fairer distribution of
>> power and resources. It is not enough, but it is a very important
>> dimension of a broader struggle for social, economic and
>> environmental justice.
>>
>>
>> It is important to acknowledge that part of the
>> reason that civil and political rights have had more attention than
>> economic, social, and cultural rights, is because powerful
>> governments and corporations promote these rights (selectively of
>> course) for their own interests.
>>
>>
>> But that doesn't mean that those from CS who
>> have been fighting for human rights online have sold out, or that
>> civil and political rights on the internet are not important. It does
>> mean that we need to find better strategies to make progress on
>> economic, social and cultural rights, as well as on achieving social
>> justice.
>>
>>
>> New forums such as the Internet Social Forum
>> will be, I hope, such a strategy. It should be able to succeed on its
>> own merits/values rather than on deligitimising work that is already
>> being done by others. Acknowledging work already under way, and
>> challenging/supporting it to expand on how human rights are
>> understood in the online environment to include ESCR and social
>> justice will achieve far more in my view, than trying to discredit
>> existing efforts.
>>
>>
>> Another problematic claim made on this list is
>> that people from civil society who supported the NETmundial outcome
>> statement (many of those who were supportive, including APC, had some
>> reservations - seehttp://www.apc.org/en/node/19224) and who engage
>> in multistakeholder initiatives have 'sold out' and that all they are
>> doing is legitimising these spaces.
>>
>>
>> Firstly, it is simply not accurate to imply that
>> civil society activists who participate in spaces that are dominated
>> by either businesses or governments have inevitably been co-opted by
>> those spaces.
>>
>>
>> This cannot be assumed to be true for civil
>> society who work in intergovernmental spaces such as the ITU where
>> civil society has very little influence other than working through
>> government delegations or for civil society working in
>> multi-stakeholder policy spaces such as ICANN.
>>
>>
>> Efforts to bring about change in policy and in
>> behaviour requires engaging those you disagree with. It also requires
>> forming coalitions and alliances, but unless those like-minded
>> alliances interact with actors they disagree with, they are not
>> likely to have much impact. Interaction takes many shapes: protest,
>> challenge, debate. It involves finding out where lines of division
>> are drawn, and also where there is possible common ground or
>> leverage.
>>
>>
>> I have never attended a WEF meeting but
>> left-wing colleagues from South African and international civil
>> society involved in the campaign for access to medicines (HIV
>> retrovirals and TB meds) as well as those involved in GCAP (Global
>> Campaign Against Poverty) and climate change attend repeatedly to
>> speak out and to challenge business and governments. Their presence
>> in Davos does not necessarily mean they have been coopted. In the
>> campaign for access to medicines spaces like the WEF were an
>> important battle ground and was used by civil society to gain
>> government support to force pharmaceutical companies to change.
>>
>>
>> Secondly, to say that that civil society
>> participation in problematic bodies like the NETmundial Initiative
>> will achieving nothing other than legitimising them is questionable.
>> It will take far more than the presence of a few individuals from
>> civil society to legitimise the NMI. The NMI will rise or fall on
>> what it achieves and how transparent and inclusive its processes are.
>> Those of us who are involved are trying our best to use the NMI as an
>> opportunity to support the initiative started by the Brazilian
>> government with the NETmundial to deepen the understanding and
>> practice of multi-stakeholder governance, to take the best we can
>> from the Marco Civil and the experience of theCGI.br <http://cgi.br/> and make it go
>> further.
>>
>>
>> Of course there are different, and likely
>> conflicting, agendas in the NMI. But are there not conflicting
>> agendas in intergovernmental UN spaces?
>>
>>
>> Sean, I fully share your view that UN spaces are
>> incredibly important and I also believe that our ultimate goal must
>> be to transform both global and national governance environments.
>>
>>
>> To achieve social justice civil society needs to
>> challenge both governments and businesses. To challenge them (and
>> their often complicit behaviour) we need to recognise that neither
>> 'sector' is homogeneous, and we have to work in both
>> intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder spaces.
>>
>>
>> However, I question the assumption that
>> multistakeholder policy spaces are more 'captured' by business interests than intergovernmental spaces are.
>>
>>
>> In my experience this is simply not true. A case
>> in point would be the mobile phone industry in Africa. It is rare to
>> find them in multistakeholder internet governance spaces. It is
>> common to find them at intergovernmental meetings and in
>> policy-making processes at national level. You don't have to scratch
>> very deep to identify which form of 'governance' serves their
>> interests best. It is not multi-stakeholder.
>>
>>
>> As a broad based forum of civil society
>> organisations and individuals working for public interest oriented
>> internet governance we (by 'we' I include many if not most people on
>> this list) should be able to benefit from being involved in different
>> types of IG platforms/institutions. In my view it is an advantage
>> that some people on this list are close to the ITU, or have ITU
>> membership (as I am happy to say APC has since the Plenipot).
>> Similarly it is in our interest that some of us work closely with
>> their national governments, while others participate in ICANN, the
>> NMI, or the IETF.
>>
>>
>> The notion that only those who have rejected
>> engagement with multi-stakeholder spaces or approaches have a
>> legitimate claim to being part of the struggle for social justice
>> undermines our ability to collaborate, to deepen our analysis, and,
>> to be constructively critical of ourselves in ways that can help us
>> be more effective.
>>
>>
>> I don't want to minimise political differences
>> in civil society. Differences are real - but this space has become so
>> dominated by judgemental assumptions and lack of respect for one
>> another that we don't get to talk about these differences in a
>> helpful way. Let's argue those differences out in the form of
>> concrete interventions in policy processes rather than at the level
>> of personal or ideological accusations.
>>
>>
>> If the Internet Social Forum creates a new space
>> for collaboration and linkages with broader civil society and social
>> movements it can be a dynamic and important new channel for civil
>> society working for fair inclusive public-interest oriented internet
>> governance.
>>
>>
>> If it is exclusive and judgemental, and
>> dismissive of the many people and organisations (including on this
>> list) who do not use the same jargon and who have not jumped on any
>> bandwagon in the polarised discussion that dominates this list, it
>> will deepen divisions and is not likely to be very effective in
>> meeting
>> is stated goals.
>>
>>
>> It is also not helpful when people assume that
>> the ISF will be exclusive, judgemental, unwelcoming. Let's give it a
>> chance, participate, and use this opportunity to expand existing efforts.
>>
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/f5fe8e49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list