<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 6 Feb 2015, at 7:20 am, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for, for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the following questions in one or another form). <br><br>Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some detail on what is meant by:<br>a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the governed.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I think you have the process backwards somewhat, Michael. For example, there is a really large, complex process looking very seriously at accountability mechanisms within ICANN right now. There are cross community working groups, multiple work streams, proposals and discussion flying around, and it is deeply intertwined with the IANA transition process. A lot of really significant accountability changes are being canvassed, such external review processes, mechanisms to remove board members, etc. For those civil society groups engaged with ICANN, this is occupying a great deal of our time. You are asking to fully understand the accountability mechanisms within complex organisations before you commit to becoming involved. I think if you wish to have good accountability within those structure, become involved and fight for it. </div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability">https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability</a></div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>And information about the accountability mechanisms that already exist is not hard to find at all. Want to know about accountability mechanisms within ICANN?</div><div>Start here, spend a few hours reading, you’ll know more than most ICANN participants</div><div><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/accountability-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/accountability-en</a></div><div>The ATRT reports are perhaps not the best place to start for an outsider, but they are well worth a read, with a LOT of information about ICANN accountability and transparency mechanisms and how they work in practice, from independent review processes that include both genuine outsiders and knowledgable ICANN insiders (Avri was on the second ATRT, and did a lot of great work). </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I don’t think there is a fundamental disagreement on the principles of accountability between JNC and groups like NCSG that are engaged with ICANN, but there is a profound gulf on tactics. For example, the JNC position on ICANN seems to be ‘we are unsure that ICANN is sufficiently accountable, so we will refuse to engage’. The end result is that most JNC comments on accountability within ICANN etc are not listened to, not because they are wrong in principle, but because they are misinformed, lacking the knowledge that comes from direct experience and relying on third hand reports. I recall last year, for example, conversations with you that made it clear that you had no idea at all that direct participants in ICANN policy processes had to lodge a statement of interest. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>In NCSG you won’t find us saying many good things about ICANN accountability either, but the difference is that, having engaged directly with its accountability mechanisms and discovered first hand their problems, we are now (given the leverage of the IANA transition process) in a good position to push to change those accountability mechanisms for the better. We know what works, we know what doesn’t, we know how mechanisms will be subverted or weakened. Accountability isn’t a slogan, it is a battle front, and one on which we currently have a good chance to make some very solid gains. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Which isn’t to say that I feel that being the internal opposition is the only viable strategy. Rather, strategically we should have both an internal opposition and an external opposition, and they should work together. At the moment, JNC seems to spend a large amount of its effort on attacking civil society colleagues for acting as the internal opposition. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory democracy”</blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This is actually an area that deserves significant discussion. Is the model of democracy we want aggregative (in which case certainly multi-stakeholderism fails, but we have no good model for transnational aggregative democracy, nor is one likely to emerge IMO - and democracy should be more than the tyranny of the majority) or deliberative (in which case multi-stakeholderism can be seen as profoundly democratic, as it forces deliberation, but multi-stakeholderism models currently do a poor job of dealing with situations where deliberation fails to achieve consensus)? Is democracy about representing the views of the majority, or protecting the voice and rights of minorities? Is democracy about the voice of the people, or is it about justice for all?</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>These are not new debates. They are among the oldest of political debates, and we will continue to have them. There is no one defining right answer. Civil society should have a range of views and priorities. I admit that as I represent a civil rights organisation within most IG processes, my focus is on protection of rights for all, but that is my individual focus. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>My primary policy difference with JNC is simply that JNCs dialogue about democracy vs multistakeholderism pretty much entirely ignores the problem of anti-democratic governments. I literally cannot recall a single comment from JNC advocates that addresses the issue. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">c. "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead role</blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The whole point of multi-stakeholderism is that no one sector has a lead role. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of accountability in these alternative modalities, how is representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>These are really good questions. I do not think there is a single simple answer. There ARE areas in which governments should have the primary public policy role. But there are areas in which they should not. There do need to be accountability mechanisms, but such mechanisms do need to evolve to deal with the issues that arise from specific processes. How do we broaden inclusivity of processes, especially ones (such as very technical processes) that have a high barrier to entry. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>And the question of how we deal with inclusivity/representativity in the absence of anchored democratic processes in another issue that is important, but that is a big problem without a simple solution. Because transnational processes are always conducted in the absence of anchored democratic processes as long as there are major states that are not democratic. As I said above, my biggest policy disagreement with the JNC is how often it conflates ‘states’ and ‘democratic states’, such as the rhetoric supporting its push to retain article 35. It is naive and hypocritical not to up front address the issue that any time a JNC position supports a primary role for government, it strengthens authoritarian anti-democratic governments as well as democratically elected ones - and that is leaving aside the ‘neoliberal’ corporatist subversion of the international trade position of most democratically elected governments, which you’d think would be a JNC concern really. </div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">I don't mean these questions argumentatively but rather these are some of the questions that need to be answered before any kind of discussion of these kinds can go forward. (Simply "answering" them through the creation of "facts" in reality a la the NMI only makes the issues more fraught and difficult to address in reality although perhaps not in theory since the actors and actions involved tosses the theoretical underpinnings into stark relief.)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I have some sympathy, though I think that we practically have to deal with processes that are happening as well. I would certainly support dialogue on issues such as how to address risks to democracy in mutti-stakeholder fora, how to promote democratic mechanisms in transnational fora that include powerful anti-democratic nations, etc. But I would argue that your frequent use of terms like democracy and accountability in cheap sloganeering is detrimental to that dialogue. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>BTW, it would be good if the evidently closed loop of self-reflexive IG think tanks etc. --the WEF/NMI, the Bildt Commission or whatever it's called, ICANN's various internal too-ing and fro-ings could use some of their expense account zillions to actually address some of these rather fundamental issues in a way that actually recognized the internal controversies and external oppositions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I can assure you that while some recent ICANN think tank exercises may have been exercises in internal group-think, the IANA and Accountability processes (for example) very much do recognise the internal controversies and external oppositions. And many other ICANN processes very much recognise the internal controversies.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Regards</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>David<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>M <br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm<br>Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 1:42 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum<br><br>On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here. Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.<br></blockquote><br>If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the former perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have framed it fairly. If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced framing of that perspective: those who advocate for the development of multi-stakeholder models of democratic representation in global Internet governance in which governments do not a priori have the lead role (though in appropriate cases they may).<br><br>--<br>Jeremy Malcolm<br>Senior Global Policy Analyst<br>Electronic Frontier Foundation<br><a href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a><br>jmalcolm@eff.org<br><br>Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<br><br>:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::<br><br>Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt<br>PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD<br><br>Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:<br>https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en<br><br><br><br><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> 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></blockquote></div><br></body></html>