[bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance

Thu Feb 6 01:43:09 EST 2014

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
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140206/54775f61/attachment.htm>