[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; <,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 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