[bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

Anja Kovacs anja at internetdemocracy.in
Fri Feb 14 03:08:31 EST 2014


Agreed, Michael.

Anja


On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> *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 I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning
> >     > Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I'm
> >     > 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 one's own narrow (corporate/national/institutional )
> >     > interests and what the significance of this observation has to
> >     > be for these discussions and their outputs.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > This isn't 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 don't 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.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > I'm 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
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140214/f9ca317f/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list