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

Fri Feb 7 09:18:40 EST 2014

Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to
promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in
engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that
this lens on IG process or principles has been lacking from the process so
far.  So maybe you can explain -- is it that you have a different theory of
how CS can/should seek to become more powerful?  A different approach to
advocacy than what most activists/advocates have been practicing?  I'm sure
many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how to
obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all the
time....

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.
>
> How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
> discussion on that basis?
>
> If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
> reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
> going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
> area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
> request to please reply.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140207/712f4910/attachment.htm>