[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