[bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Tue Feb 11 08:05:46 EST 2014
While somewhat agreeing with what you say below I would add the need to
protect against the capture of CS and other elements in those processes
through ensuring full transparency and effective structures of
accountability.
M
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:20 AM
To: Norbert Bollow
Cc: IGC; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was
Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
I agree with much of what Ian and Avri had to say. The reason I am still
putting my bet on exploring multistakeholderism in greater detail is
because, as I have mentioned before, the defining differences here are that
civil society in that system would also be guaranteed a place around the
table if it so desired (i.e. corporations wouldn't be the only ones), and
that governments would have to account for what they do with the inputs
provided, rather than those inputs just disappearing into what sometimes
seems like a black box. If we can make those things stick, I think that is a
major gain for people's democracy, not a loss.
Corporate power is not the only obstacle in the way of such a vision
succeeding though. It also requires a new kind of organising among civil
society, including by working through and addressing the very real power
imbalances within civil society. That is our responsibility. Whether or not
we'll be able to step up to the challenge is a wait and see, but I for one
would like us to try.
Anja
On 10 February 2014 00:38, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this
I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly
better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have
considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't
necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get
posted on the IGC and BestBits lists.
Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov
Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to
address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms
against capture and other forms of undue influence by special
interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related
discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough
crossposting problem) already.
Greetings,
Norbert
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
> the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly
> take these realities of particular interests (which are often in
> conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
>
>
> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As Im reading the various messages and suggestions concerning
> > Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others Im
> > struck by one overwhelming observation
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with
> > respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions)
> > are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors
> > (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and
> > the well-being of the Internet.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus proposals for this type of decentralized governance
> > structure and that proposal for the management of decision
> > making through MSism all are making the completely unwarranted
> > and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there
> > are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely
> > unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
> > ensure the dominance of their own
> > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever
> > emerges from whatever process.
> >
> >
> >
> > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very seriously
> > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures
> > can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail
> > that these processes are not captured and subverted
i.e. what
> > are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that
> > we (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are
> > promoting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be
> > impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and
> > the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the
> > responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to
> > support ones own narrow (corporate/national/institutional )
> > interests and what the significance of this observation has to
> > be for these discussions and their outputs.
> >
> >
> >
> > This isnt paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple
> > common sense.
> >
> >
> >
> > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been
> > telling us?
> >
> >
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja
> > Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> > To: Anne Jellema
> > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG);
> > genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org;
> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive
> > proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
> > comments below:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > /SNIP/
> >
> > If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to
> > require some kind of global public action, then in the spirit
> > of form following function, maybe the rather daunting
> > discussion on the best institutional model(s) will become
> > easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can
> > think harder about viable routes for an international body or
> > forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for
> > different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and
> > setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
> > applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la
> > ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)?
> > Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an
> > enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key
> > internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination
> > of the above? Or none of the above?!
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> > decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because
> > it allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on
> > goals (see our proposal outlined here:
> >
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
> > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
> > It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately
> > address all issues, and some issues might even require a
> > variety of organisations/institutions to lead a process
> > together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such an
> > approach also has the advantage of making it possible to
> > already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on the
> > process, without needing to wait for agreement on the
> > one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
> > issues for all time to come.
> >
> > Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia
> > and Ian expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape
> > processes in each case in such a way that the shifting and
> > changing power relations among different groups can be taken
> > into account and whatever process is decided on provides as
> > level a playing field as possible for the different groups that
> > have a stake in that particular issue.
> >
> > Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked
> > earlier, and that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us
> > present in the meeting that this document reports on thought
> > that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be making any
> > substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
> > agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a
> > particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests
> > that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
> > process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still
> > up to that institution to accept or reject that request. This
> > is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can
> > only request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
> >
> > Best,
> > Anja
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
> > - IG governance
> > To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> >
> >
> > Hi Andrew and all,
> >
> >
> >
> > After reading the document I was willing to send a more
> > carefully written comment, but I believe it is better to share
> > thoughts informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the
> > chaotic message.
> >
> >
> >
> > First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You
> > managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide both an
> > overview of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the
> > group who analyzed them (which are also useful btw). Some
> > remarks I would initially have are the following.
> >
> >
> >
> > - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned
> > imbalances of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other
> > similar things as "cases for governance reform". I think that
> > one conclusion from that is that although we support the idea
> > of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived"
> > and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to
> > emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
> > recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united
> > around MS all along. In fact, I think many actors in CS have
> > been pointing out to these imbalances for a long time, so in
> > order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion
> > should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
> >
> >
> >
> > - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
> > identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will
> > assume the first option is correct...
> >
> >
> >
> > - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed
> > governance" that you mapped overlook some important points. If
> > MIPC or MIPOC produce recommendations and send them to other
> > organizations:
> >
> > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
> >
> > b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's
> > advice? If there is no weight, would we be giving an additional
> > incentive to, for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the
> > Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the subject
> > would not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does
> > this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
> > international regimes?
> >
> > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back
> > to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
> >
> > d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
> > improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont
> > know if there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to
> > continue the forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
> >
> > e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is
> > little chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes
> > without a very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who
> > understand of methodologies to deal with large groups. Those
> > who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I did,
> > that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN.
> > The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the
> > technical community were alligned against UN public funding,
> > taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of
> > improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
> > funding to the IGF?
> >
> > f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was
> > not sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the
> > frailty of the IGF and the fact that outcomes from the
> > coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I
> > would look into that more carefully
> >
> >
> >
> > - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
> > Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less
> > clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more
> > opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in
> > mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument
> > that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
> > without power and resources.
> >
> >
> >
> > - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> > possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so
> > maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal
> > with the diversity of internet issues could be more carefully
> > explained.
> >
> >
> >
> > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
> > hoping we can continue the discussions.
> >
> > Thanks again for the good start
> >
> > Marília
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Anne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin
> > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a
> > clear, targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society
> > agenda going forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost dont care
> > what what the specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the
> > timeline is excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is
> > limited, and if want to take away something substantive from
> > Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now.
> >
> >
> >
> > Im not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda
> > should be, or should have been different. Brazil is a unique
> > opportunity, and it will be shame if it goes to waste because
> > civil society focused more on process and consensus than on
> > extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
> > represents.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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:
> 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:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140211/9a710633/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list