(part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps

Thu Dec 12 10:28:58 EST 2013

+1
________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:15 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
Subject: Re: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps

carrying on from my last email, sorry for the length...

Brazil is a wonderful opportunity, so here are some ideas about how I think it could proceed.

Purpose.  A two-day meeting to discuss a limited number of IG issues/challenges.  Address how to resolve those issues by creating a number of working groups which will report back to the 2015 IGF in Brazil. The Brazil meeting to charter each working group, charters can be reviewed and if necessary finalized at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul (IGF consultation in May can also be used.)  IGF Istanbul and opportunity to check on progress, tweak, and set the WG off to report back the following year (opportunity for review during the typical February and May IGF sessions of 2015.)

The IGF is an established global process with some participation from all stakeholders. Participation must be improved, but it is the best we have for interested parties to discuss as peers.

Brazil is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF, make it more relevant, more useful. And at the same time give the Brazil meeting a means to be more than just another two days of talk.

Themes.  Importance of Bali IGF as a starting point for identifying themes. The Brazil "summit" was an important topic referred to repeatedly during sessions in Bali.  The Montevideo Statement attracted almost as much interest and support.

Bali's been the only opportunity we've had to hear a broad spectrum of views on the proposal to meet in Brazil, the only significant gathering of different stakeholders where that meeting and why it was called has been discussed. There were rich discussions in Bali, they are worth building on, we aren't staring from nothing. The chair's summary attempts to cover some topics <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Chair's%20Summary%20IGF%202013%20Final.Nov1v1.pdf>, the transcripts provide a full record <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-transcripts>

A few things I think there's some agreement on:
- The Brazil meeting should focus on dialogue, not in itself be a decision making event.
- Widespread support for the IGF: the Brazil meeting should not in anyway replace/undermine the IGF (and nor should 1net.)
- Widespread support for the five principles President Rousseff proposed to the UN general assembly (they inspired Fadi Chehadé to meet her and to call for the meeting).
- The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation is widely supported (also by Brazil govt representatives during the IGF.)
- The multi-stakeholder approach must be strengthened; there is concern about a coming period of multilateral processes.
- Condemnation of surveillance.
- Agreement that global principles protecting human rights online should be developed and adopted (a close fit with President Rousseff's principles, and also Marco Civil -- the still draft Brazilian bill of online rights.)

More recently the Brazil Steering committee announcement <http://www.nic.br/imprensa/releases/2013/rl-2013-62.htm> refers to President Rousseff's UN speech and to the Montevideo Statement and says of the meeting it should "pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework."

I suggest the meeting should focus on universal governance principles (Rousseff) and institutional framework (Montevideo, and noting that parts of statement are complementary with Rousseff's principles.)

I think we can take it that "institutional framework" refers to IANA and ICANN, the original themes of Internet governance. Gives seven main discussion themes for the meeting:

President Rousseff (speech to the UN General Assembly), principles and norms to help guide the international operation of the Internet:

1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights.
2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, governments and the private sector.
3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies.
4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values.
5. Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes.

Original issues of Internet governance and from the Montevideo Statement:

6 & 7. The globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing, i.e. development of new institutional framework.

These fall into five main areas:

(1) Good work's done on Internet governance principles and cooperation in many organizations and fora, these were well presented in Bali. Bring the different actors together for Brazil, invite them to join a working group and collectively develop a set of principles for global governance, tasks completed by IGF 2015. To address aspects of Rousseff 1-4 and parts of the Montevideo Statement.

(2) Global principles for protecting Human Rights online. Work's been done by various parties, from the UN Rapporteur to more recently a group leading international authors, and a collection of U.S. Internet companies.  In Bali the Swedish Government presented seven fundamental principles that should apply to maintain respect for human rights when carrying out surveillance of electronic communications -- these were strongly supported, they refer to legality, legitimate aim, necessity and adequacy, proportionality, judicial authority, transparency, and public oversight. And of course there's much more.  Brazil is an opportunity to bring these parties together, hear their ideas and set the tasks for a working group to develop appropriate and working principles.

It is not hard to imagine working groups on these themes producing adoptable outcomes.

(3) President Rousseff's fifth topic, Network Neutrality, might be harder to reach consensus on.  But that doesn't mean discussion of different approaches to network neutrality would not be valuable (e.g. proposed regulation in Europe, actual situations elsewhere, the IGF net neutrality coalition reported in Bali, greater consideration of what network neutrality means in developing markets, particularly mobile). If a working group was unable to reach definite recommendations, one still might be established with the task of providing model frameworks, an overview of different approaches and critiques of them.

(4) Institutional Framework for the IANA function. Internet tech community has been making recommendations since 2006, RIRs made proposals for an independent IANA function during the last re-bid of the contract. Civil society actors have made proposals and have strong opinions... so do governments.  A multi-stakeholder discussion of IANA, root zone database and Verisign's contract with NTIA, the root operators and whether their work needs more oversight, this is a discussion I think needs to happen.  Give a working group 18 months to develop a new institutional framework.

(5) Globalization of ICANN. What would an independent ICANN look like? How would an independent ICANN be globally accountable? An affirmation of commitments between ICANN and us not U.S.  From oversight by one government to no government, or oversight by all?  What kind of host country agreement, what protections?  And many more questions. A working group might monitor the Accountability and Transparency Review Team process and provide advice on ICANN's internal processes, while also propose new models for independence.

18 months to get an international framework for IANA into acceptable shape, for principles on good governance and human rights, for some dialogue that may or may not shape some domestic policy on net neutrality, to provide models for an independent ICANN.

Between now and April 2014 various actors invited to make proposals, papers to help shape discussion, and provide ideas as to charters for the working groups. The Brazil meeting discusses issues, the charters and tasks of working groups, sets ground rules for there operation (multi-stakeholder, transparency, etc).

September 2014, IGF in Istanbul can be used to review progress, perhaps recommend changes. Not hard to imagine a role for the high-level/ministerial pre-meeting.  Tasks to be complete by IGF of 2015 back in Brazil. The IGF offers check-points along the way: first in May 2014 when the MAG typically meets to finalize the agenda for the year, and two meetings in 2015. The IGF is our only substantive multi-stakeholder process, it's known, it can be a means to carry work forward, so use it. And make the Brazil meeting more than talk.

Adam

On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:

> I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue.
>
> I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals.
>
> Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community.  If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important.
>
> Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified?  I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray.
>
> Thanks for this analysis, Mike!
>
> George
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
>> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing… It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance… Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context.
>>
>> I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called)…
>>
>> So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited.
>>
>> There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world…
>>
>> These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved.
>>
>> Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available.
>>
>> The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with.
>>
>> I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet.  I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel
>> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps
>>
>> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own.
>>
>> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing.
>>
>> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net  (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here.
>>
>> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net?
>>
>> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will.
>>
>> --MM
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131212/30d967c9/attachment.htm>