[bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
Norbert Bollow
nb at bollow.ch
Sun Feb 9 14:08:12 EST 2014
Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this
I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly
better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have
considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't
necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get
posted on the IGC and BestBits lists.
Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov
Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to
address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms
against capture and other forms of undue influence by special
interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related
discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough
crossposting problem) already.
Greetings,
Norbert
> 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.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list