[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Mon Mar 10 23:11:56 EDT 2014

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) is responsible for
overseeing and aiding Internet development in the country, as well as
the coordination and integration of all Internet services initiatives.
It was established by a Inter-ministerial (Ministry of Communication
and Ministry of Science, Technology and Inovation) Ordinance in 1995,
and later amended by a Presidential Decree in 2003. The CGI.br is
currently composed by 21 members:

-Nine representatives of the Federal Government:

Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation - that also coordinates
the Committee;

Ministry of Communication;

Presidential Cabinet;

Ministry of Defense;

Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade;

Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management;

National Telecommunication Agency;

National Council for Scientific, and Technological Development ;

National Council of State Secretariats for Science Technology and
Information Issues

-Four representatives from the corporate sector

Internet access and content providers;

Telecommunication infrastructure providers;

Hardware, telecommunication and software industries;

Enterprises that use the Internet .

- Four representatives from the third sector (NGOs, civil society
non-profit organizations)

- Three representatives from the scientific and technological community

- One Internet Expert

The representatives are elected every 3 years by their own sectors, an
electoral college previously settled for this only purpose, and most
of the decisions are taken by consensus. The meetings occur monthly
and, depending on the subject being debated, the Committee passes
resolutions proposing policies, recommending standards and procedures,
establishing strategic directives . These recommendations haven't any
legal power, their aim is to inform the policies and legislation and
Internet governance stakeholders actions. CGI.br is thus a true
multistakeholder body. The federal government is well represented but
does not have a majority of voting member neither has influence over
the representatives election.

In order to perform its activities, the CGI.br created a non - profit
civil organization, the Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br)
that, with the names registration surplus, provides a range of
services to the Brazilian Internet community as is illustrated:

registering and maintaining <.br> domain names, as well as allocating
Autonomous System Numbers (ASN) and IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in the
country throug Registro.br;

handling and responding to computer security incidents involving
networks connected to the Brazilian Internet, which are activities to
be carried out by CERT.br;

projects that support and improve the network infrastructure in the
country, such as the direct interconnection between networks (PTT.br)
and the distribution of the Brazilian Official Time (NTP.br). These
projects are the responsibility of CEPTRO.br;

producing and publishing indicators, statistics and strategic
information on the development of the Brazilian Internet, under the
responsibility of CETIC.br;

promoting studies and recommending procedures, norms and technical and
operational standards that will improve network and Internet service
security, as well as ensure its increased and adequate use by society,
as established by the W3C.br;

providing technical and operational support to LACNIC, the Internet
Address Registry for Latin America and the Caribbean.

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:32 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Friday 07 March 2014 03:40 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> I think it is not so clear cut.
>
> We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have
> opportunities to make them more democratic.
>
> I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of Brazil who
> is very active in CGI.br.
>
> I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to use
> Jovan's term) or policy making.  My understanding was that it was primarily
> for policy shaping.
>
> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body that
> can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these lists can
> give examples.
>
> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that is
> multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public policies, as
> well as make recommendations for public policies.
>
>
> I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br having made a public policy.
> Can you offer one.. then we will know what exactly are we discussing here.
>
> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical decisions,
> is also the difference between original public policy authority and
> delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that are rather well
> worked out in the texts of political science and public administration.
>
> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being subject to
> a higher authority (judicial review being a different matter) and is
> accompanied with legitimate coercive power for enforcement. Such power only
> lies with elected representatives in democracies. It cannot, for instance,
> be exercised by business representatives .
>
> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex manner
> whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international treaties,
> and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements, the manner of
> their national application remain in a somewhat complex interplay with
> national political systems. But this system of global public policies still
> works.)
>
> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public policy
> function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>
> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions
> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big business to
> exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is established on
> some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover all areas of our
> social and political existence. This is what is happening now.
>
> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in public
> policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big business
> can thus exercise formal political power, and where it cannot. The
> multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the one offered by
> Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the global level.
> Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level. Such
> efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this models is
> brought to the national levels.
>
> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
> contributing so strongly to...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, but
> it is multi-stakeholder.
>
> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
> different parts of government is represented which his important. Business
> is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>
> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public
> policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond the
> traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public
> consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.
>
> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models to
> be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does
> not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and
> promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS
> space.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>  On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>
> Joy
>
> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>
> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov
> participants(which includes business) should be on the same footing as
> gov participants in terms of actually *making public **policies*
>
> *. *Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>
>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>
> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, which
> arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying statements.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - or
> is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I hope
> such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks.
>
>
>  On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>
> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full
> quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full
> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
> international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
> role in relation to international internet governance.
>
> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are
> not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on record
> in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one
> form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites
> a range of other documents and says, taken together, certain principles
> relevant to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>
> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>
> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best
> Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant
> to internet governance
> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing
> so; and
> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore
> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they
> can of course be involved/consulted) .
>
> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which is
> relevant to internet governance
> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or parity
> with each other when doing so;
>
> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which
> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is
> considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights
> (among others) are relevant to them.
>
>
> Joy
> Joy
> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use
> of 'multilateral'.
>
> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full
> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
> international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
> role in relation to international internet governance."
>
> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense
> as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries.  We
> did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>
> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how we
> understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the private
> sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government
> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet
> governance."
>
> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning "among
> governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly
> did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government
> should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other
> stakeholders too.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>  And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has
> this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet
> governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable
> access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process."
> Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>
> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission
> to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>
> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  -
> which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>
> *Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder
> participation"* and whether it is different from what is meant in the
> above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you
> seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please
> address this point specifically.
>
>
>  Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on
> the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself:
> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity"
> and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is
> somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have
> about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>
>
>
> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean *parity* in *decision making*about *public
> policies *between gov and non gov actors....
>
>
>
> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS
> contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>
> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governance should be
> multilateral and democratic. "
>
> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present
> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come from
> the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>
> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted as
> somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and G
> 8 principles....
>
> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically
> speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not figure
> (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy
> (the other two docs)
>
> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society
> actors in IG space - come up with .....
>
> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this
> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics"
> you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity,
> accountability, and *equitable multistakeholder participation *"
> (emphasis added)
>
> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word
> 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone and
> was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is
> worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc.
>
> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get
> caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of the
> wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic world,
> that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part
> of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful
> warriors of the neolib order.
>
> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches what
> some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US supported
> status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial......
> All of piece.
>
> parminder
>
>
> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on
> this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if
> we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too
> difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to
> NetMundial
>
> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people,
> possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues
> and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic
> legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure
> that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation
> complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves,
> and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of
> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private
> sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and
> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet,
> and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials
> for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to
> information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society,
> all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>      --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>  WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140310/3dba9009/attachment.htm>