[bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
Mishi Choudhary
mishi at softwarefreedom.org
Fri Feb 7 16:45:39 EST 2014
+1
On 02/07/2014 02:06 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Happy to discuss this too Norbert – as you know I wrote recently on
> list about the various hidden agendas that can hide behind
> multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
> multistakeholderism). I think mapping these agendas and areas of self
> interest would be a good guide to strategy.
>
> Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this, but in any case
> happy to engage.
>
> *From:* Anja Kovacs <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:16 AM
> *To:* Gene Kimmelman <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Norbert Bollow <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> ; IGC
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; Michael Gurstein
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>
> Hi Norbert,
>
> Like Gene, I am always interested in engaging with new
> people/organisations on these issues, so do please count me in.
>
> Thanks,
> Anja
>
>
> On 7 February 2014 19:48, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com
> <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> > [mailto: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
> <mailto:mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG>); genekimmelman at gmail.com
> <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>;
> > jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org>>
> > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG>)
> > <mgodwin at internews.org <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
--
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org
Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140207/752aaec9/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list