[bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014

Fri Oct 11 07:30:48 EDT 2013

Agree with your points Jeremy, but I don't think we should assume that
the IGF, and discussions that happen in and around the IGF, have not
influenced this trajectory or other trajectories of change that have
taken place in IG since Tunis. I am pretty sure that it has and I hope
that people will do substantive research to look into this.

We need to reflect on what we really want from the IGF, and then
evaluate it accordingly. Not saying you, or the rest of us have not done
that, but it is worth doing it again, particularly now that we have
worked with its strengths and weaknesses for the last 7 years. Willie
Currie who used to be APC's policy manager during and after Tunis (and
was part of the final negotiations) used to talk about the IGF as a soft
power mechanism. He had great belief in soft power based on his
extensive political experience - in exiled political organisations
during Apartheid, in the trade union movement, in government, in social
movements and in civil society.

Soft power mechanisms influence people, directly and /or indirectly.
They do not directly influence negotiated outcomes from
institutionalised processes, but people do influence those processes and
outcomes. The IGF is one of the more transparent and accessible soft
power mechanisms I have encountered. It is by no means the only soft
power platform civil society activists should use, nor should we
restrict our efforts to soft power processes, but I think we would be
very short sighted to abandon it at this point.

Personality / individual driven political processes that are not fully
backed by their constituencies and institutions often implode, or are
redirected - even if some of those personalities and leaders have the
best of intentions. In the case of Dilma and Brazil their position has
been consistent (although as Carlos pointed out, not all voices in the
Brazilian government agree with this approach), but this is the case
with ICANN?

We need to watch this process, and try to influence it. Often when these
kind of alliances between oppositional forces take place civil society's
influence is at its weakest because the brokering/mediation role we
often play is not needed, and as the stakes are quite high, the players
want only those who have power and resources at the table.

But this is a great opportunity. Rather than see this summit as making 
the IGF irrelevant, I think we should link it to the IGF process, and to
UN processes (the speech was made at the GA after all) and more broadly
to institutionalising inclusive policy processes rather than having them
take place through the whims or good graces of powerful individuals.

Anriette

On 11/10/2013 11:15, matthew shears wrote:
> I agree.
>
> On 11/10/2013 04:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 11/10/13 00:00, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> I cannot agree more.
>>>
>>> Not only do I share Rafik's skepticism, I also think we should not
>>> fall into the trap of thinking of ICANN (and the ICANN DNS gold
>>> rush) as being at the core of the policy-making processes that
>>> matter to how people access, use, and develop the internet.
>>>
>>> That ICANN is now setting broader agendas, along with governments,
>>> reflects entirely what is problematic with how power and influence
>>> plays out in IG and I find it alarming.
>>>
>>> Definitely agree with Anja and others who say that CS should get
>>> involved in this debate. A critical perspective is needed now more
>>> than ever.
>>
>> My first thought too was that this was opportunism on ICANN's part
>> (and, heck, probably on Dilma's too), but so what?  When two top
>> leaders have done more in one day to open the doors to Internet
>> governance reform than the IGF MAG has done in eight years, hurrah
>> for opportunism - let's make the most of it.
>>
>> But I also agree that the proposed letter is a bit light on, and that
>> we should develop more of an agenda for the event before sending such
>> a letter.  This can, as Deborah said, be done online and in person at
>> the Best Bits meeting, and should be an output of the meeting which
>> we open for endorsements and IGC consensus call then.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Policy Officer
>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>> Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>> knowledge hub |
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
>> print this email unless necessary.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director and Representative
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> +44 (0) 771 247 2987
> Skype: mshears

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131011/4e7cb082/attachment.htm>