[bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance

Wed Feb 5 16:40:21 EST 2014

Thanks to Andrew and Article 19 for pulling together such a clear and
helpful paper.

I agree that it is useful to give substantive examples of goals that we
want to see advanced through whatever system of governance is adopted.

I think Andrew's list is a great place to start, especially if it resonates
with outcomes from a previous Best Bits process (in Baku). It combines a
clear stand on privacy with some of the big issues that were being debated
pre-Snowden, particularly revenue capture (via net neutrality).

I agree with Jeremy that freedom of expression and association should be
there alongside privacy.

A *brief* list is very good, but in the spirit of Gene's challenge: what
about adding something about 'maintaining an open, distributed global
network' (it's mentioned higher up in the document, should we also capture
it as a goal?) and/or 'promoting diversity and meaningful competition in
all layers of internet infrastructure, services and communications' (i.e.
avoiding massive market concentration - I'm struggling to find a way to
frame this positively).

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?!

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
>
>
> --
>
> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
>
> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446
>
> *Skype* mnemonic1026
>
> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA
>
>
>
> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.*
>
> www.internews.org | @internews <http://www.twitter.com/internews> |
> facebook.com/internews <http://www.facebook.com/internews>
>
> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
> To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
> I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust
> the list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point
> for progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
> disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
> discussions and negotiations can begin. ...
>
> The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
> best bits meeting
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
> On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Three examples might be:
>
> 1.       Net neutrality
>
> 2.       Protection for personal privacy
>
> 3.       Affordable access
>
> We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that
> we call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
> objectives both at the  international level and in national policies.
>
>
>
> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
> this in a two day conference
>
>
> I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
> The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
> why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
> rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
> your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
> other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.
>
> I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
> dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
> principles and mechanisms.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *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
>
> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* |
> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> 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.
>
>
> Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>to report this email as spam.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Anne Jellema
Chief Executive Officer
Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352
tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
Skype anne.jellema
@afjellema

World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140205/743c33bf/attachment.htm>