[bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

Fri Feb 7 12:10:20 EST 2014

Hi Michael,

Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent earlier,
I felt compelled to respond directly.

I have no naive assumptions about power. I do have a very different reading
of the current state of play than you have. All evidence points in the
direction that there are (to quote your words) "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" already in most policy processes. The crucial difference
between multistakeholder processes and other processes as far as I'm
concerned is that civil society now can provide such insertions as well.
That is the opportunity here, and as I don't see other stakeholder groups
abdicating their power in far more closed processes so easily, I am not
willing to let go of that opportunity until and unless we have explored
every last bits of its potential to allow groups in society with far less
power to influence policy processes and thus to help strengthen and further
democratic policy making.

Do we need safeguards etc? Yes, of course, and as I said in my earlier
message, I quite firmly believe that decentralisation is in fact one of
those safeguards, as is the malleability of the model we propose (which
does leave space for multilateral decision-making as well). But more
measures are required, and it is in this that a lot of our thinking is
invested at the moment (and I know that is the case for quite a few other
people as well).

Indeed, I have found that it is by working through these ideas step by step
that solutions emerge. Because my reading of the state of play is so
different from yours, I think that continuing to dig deeper and deeper and
sharpening these proposals step by step is the better bet, rather than
letting not having the perfect answers up front stop us from sharing any
ideas at all, and so that is the road on which I intend to continue.

All the best,
Anja

On 7 February 2014 19:03, 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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 MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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
>

-- 
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/20140207/aa867b4b/attachment.htm>