<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Great contribution Sean, I enjoyed reading it and the perspectives it
presents.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One thing I might add is the value of some multistakeholder perspectives
and involvement in a set of checks and balances that are part of a decision
making process. I could envisage a situation where final decision making, if
indeed made by governments, did not proceed without some fairly rigorous
involvement of stakeholder groups in endorsing and examining (and supporting)
proposed policy. How this would evolve exactly I am not sure, but this could
evolve from the sorts of consultations that currently occur in many governmental
decision making processes, often without meaning or as a rubber-stamping
exercise, into something meaningful that actually became part of a more formal
decision making process.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That makes more sense to me than trying to evolve some sort of
representivity model within multistakeholderism that formally identified
constituency based separate representation of some sort.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I’m sure others will have more to add.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ian Peter</DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; 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=sean@nexus.ie
href="mailto:sean@nexus.ie">Sean O Siochru</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:11 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A> ;
<A title=avri@acm.org href="mailto:avri@acm.org">Avri Doria</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social
Forum</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>Hi
Avri and everyone<BR><BR>Despite the heat in these discussions, I am more
hopeful than you about a total <FONT color=#330033>polarisation between "those
who support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues
and those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public
policy". Its possible to plausibly stake out a lot more common ground,
which I know you too would like to see. <BR><BR></FONT>My position is that
all stakeholders have a full right to have their views heard, listened to, and
responded to (a right to communicate). That debate must be structured and
conducted in a manner that the public interest is to the fore, rather than
sectional interests (the public interest is universal, by definition). It is
interesting that even corporations always argue that what they propose is good
for everyone, society as a whole, because the terms of the debate have to be set
that way - everyone has to at least <I>pretend </I>they are arguing for the
public interest. (We all know, of course, that corporate interest must - even
legally - serve their shareholders first, representing mainly the wealthy; and
indeed NGOs and governments harbour similar contradictions, though, I would
argue, overall not as intense.) <BR><BR>So representing the public
interest means that sectional interests cannot be allowed to have a significant
or unfair advantage. But to assess whether that is the case we have to
look to the current alignment of forces, and away from the 'theoretical' or
'pretend' world of all stakeholders being equal and all interested in the public
interest. <BR><BR>Currently (and this is a global and all-sectoral phenomenon)
the corporate sector has huge financial resources compared to everyone else;
furthermore the corporate sector has key powerful governments on its side.
Especially the US, but also many EU countries 'short circuit' debate in what is
in the public interest (in particular as it relates to international politics),
and identifies the public interest (national) with the interests of 'their'
corporations. The US is the most explicit in identifying with their corporations
(though there are in fact conflicting position within US corporations), forced
by the needs of national political consumption - but in reality many, if not
most, industrial countries do this. Then there is the influence of the corporate
sector among NGOs; both the NGOs that explicitly represent the interests of the
corporate sector and always have; and the ones whose positions are subtly or
less subtly influenced by corporate donations and other forms of funding.
<BR><BR>So in the current configuration of forces, it is virtually impossible to
have fair and balanced multi-stakeholders discussion and debate, because of the
huge and distorting influence of these stakeholders in the interests of
particular sets of interests. Even to enter into these arenas of supposed
multi-stakeholder debate risks given them a legitimacy they do not deserve
(though there can be tactical reasons to do so). <BR><BR>The WSIS was
interesting, because NGOs stole a march to some extent on corporate interests in
terms of developing positions and articulating them, and was able to influence
quite a few governments. We were finding our voice, there were fewer
material interests of people tied up with the whole area; and there were
certainly fewer links between the corporate sector and NGOs (with the explicit
exceptions of corporate-supporting NGOs), <BR><BR>So though I support
multi-stakeholderism in debate and discussion, making it meaningful, and keeping
the public interest to the fore gets more and more difficult. This, I think, is
the 'split' in civil society on that issue: Are all stakeholders able to
articulate their views of what is in the public interest in the current
structures? Or do some have too much control? Unfortunately I believe the
latter and that a serious rebalancing is needed. <BR><BR>One useful direction to
take, I believe, is to bring in many more 'genuine' civil society voices, who
are already active in social justice, in development, anti-imperialism etc. so
that the terms of the debate are broadened. The Internet Social Forum, to
me, might hold that potential and breathe a bit of reality into discussions
about the internet and IG. <BR><BR>However, in anything I said above, I
did not mention decision-making - it was about <I>discussion and debate</I>, and
about trying to establish what is in the public interest and trying to influence
other - including the wider public - to these points of view. This is the public
sphere. <BR><BR>International decision-making, and the appropriate
structures to take more or less binding decisions, are not the same. And
this is where government do have a privileged role. I think this is what Avri is
referring to: "<FONT color=#330033>sovereign special rights on
international Internet public policy issues" i.e. governments having special
rights to take decisions. <BR><BR></FONT>Before I say any more: I have
already criticised US and EU governments - so I am under so illusion that they
uniformly represent the public interest. And this is aside from the nasty
regimes in so many countries whose pretense at representing their citizens is
far flimsier, and maintained only by brutal force and repression.
<BR><BR>Nevertheless, governments overall do in most cases represent one of the
few modicums of hard-won democracy (every scrap of it won through struggle - the
powerful never surrender power without a fight). And the United Nations
structures do - few will deny - offer a level of legitimacy in key respects that
is simply unavailable at the international level in any other stakeholder forum.
So I do believe that UN agencies have 'special rights' on global issues of
governance, and of course must be subject to the 'special' responsibilities of
transparency, accountability etc. that goes with those rights. Yes, these
rights are regularly abused by many states; and are very often exercises in
hypocrisy; but there is still a greater core of legitimacy there than anywhere
else. <BR><BR>So if I believe in multi-stakeholder debate and 'special rights'
for UN governance. How are they connected?<BR><BR>In short, if
multi-stakeholders debate works well and can generate ideas and approaches that
are demonstrably in the public interest, and can persuade ever larger number of
people of this, it can generate and sustain a public sphere in which governments
are forced to act on these and where the room to manoeuvre for hypocrites and
dictators is gradually squeezed. This is also where civil society at the
national level can influence the global governance level. (The CRIS campaign,
like so many, had a go at that.) <BR><BR>In fact I would go further than
that. Because it is not at all clear when it comes to the internet
precisely which areas must be subject to <I>binding decisions</I> per se, and
which can be subject to simple <I>agreements, </I>a rough consensus. It can
reasonably be argued that the emphasis should always be in favour of the latter,
that enforceable decisions should be kept, though design, to a minimum; and that
agreements, including alternative parallel solutions, can co-exist for instance,
should be maximised. <BR><BR>OK, crude and simple maybe, but at least this
represents a case to support <I>both </I>fair and balanced multi-stakeholder
debate <I>and </I>special - though circumscribed and scrutinised - rights for
governments. <BR><BR>Of course, if someone wants to argued that government
should have the exclusive right to debate and take decisions, and that the areas
for decisions must be maximised; and others argue that government should have no
special rights to decision making at all, then we are polarised. But very few
actually take such hard positions. (Just Net Coalition does not, for
instance). There in my view still a big area of overlap that we can work
on. <BR><BR>Sean <BR><BR>At 09:49 02/02/2015, Avri Doria wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite type="cite">Hi,<BR><FONT color=#330033><BR>While i
think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one voice, given
the fundamental differences between those who support multistakeholder
distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support
sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy issues, it
seems highly unlikely.<BR><BR>On some ancillary issues we may reach a
consensus, but on the most fundamental, that is unlikely. I think IGC
should focus on those other issues, such as modality for open participation
etc where we made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able
to influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.Â
While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do
not think we should expect to reach consensus on these
issues.<BR><BR>avri<BR><BR>On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite type="cite"><BR></FONT><BR><BR><PRE>Hi
thx. for the discussion.
The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It
is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a
bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on
common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the
past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD,
IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others. This was workable on the basis of
a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be
conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+ process,
knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of
different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights,
equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc.
..
Wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von:
<A href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</A>
im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <A href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">mailto:nb@bollow.ch</A> wrote:
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite type="cite"><BR><BR><BR><PRE>... WK is
calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
voice" says concretely!
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR><PRE>I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
the issue implied by my statement.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <A href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">mailto:nb@bollow.ch</A> wrote:
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite type="cite"><BR><BR><BR><PRE>On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
Mawaki Chango <A href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">mailto:kichango@gmail.com</A> wrote:
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite type="cite"><BR><BR><BR><PRE>In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
voice.
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR><PRE>In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR><PRE>So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
(you choose your preferred adjective)?
Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
cannot always
do)
and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
Mawaki
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite type="cite"><BR><BR><BR><PRE>In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
than it would claim to be.
Greetings,
Norbert
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR><PRE></PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><PRE>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <A href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A>
To be removed from the list, visit: <A href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</A>
For all other list information and functions, see: <A href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</A>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: <A href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</A>
Translate this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A>
</PRE><FONT
face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR>To be removed from the list,
visit:<BR> <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
eudora="autourl">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</A><BR><BR>For all
other list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
eudora="autourl">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</A><BR>To edit your
profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<BR> <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.igcaucus.org/</A><BR><BR>Translate this email: <A
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
eudora="autourl">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A><BR><BR>No virus
found in this message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="wlmailhtml:'http://www.avg.com'">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 2015.0.5646
/ Virus Database: 4273/9043 - Release Date: 02/02/15</BLOCKQUOTE><X-SIGSEP>
<P></X-SIGSEP>Seán Ó Siochrú: sean@nexus.ie tel: +353 1 272 0739
mobile: +353 87 2048150<BR>14 Eaton Brae, Shankill, Co. Dublin,
Ireland<X-TAB>
</X-TAB><X-TAB>
</X-TAB><X-TAB> </X-TAB><BR>NEXUS
Research Cooperative <A href="http://www.nexus.ie/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.nexus.ie/</A>
<P>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR>To be removed from the list,
visit:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<BR><BR>For all other list information and
functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<BR>To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/<BR><BR>Translate this email:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>