[bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?

Thu Mar 6 09:26:58 EST 2014

+ 1 on Gene
But I also see that what is happening here is something "normal" taking
into consideration the state we are within the debates of "openness" and
"participation"
even in business and law theories this debate has been emerging - if you
look into theories of open innovation (Cherbrough), user driven innovation
(Von Hippel) or crowdsource innovation  (Lakhani > free software and
Benkler > free culture and peer innovation), and design for generative
results (Zittrain).
It was actually to see ICANN bringing a bunch of these names for their
advisory panel on their strategic planning. That actually made me optimist
on devising actual process of open and broad participation.
I do believe, however, that as civil society our role is to aim for
something bold and innovative, that is as inclusive as possible, but since
I am a very practical person, I look for models that have been showing some
success. Those scholars have mapped tons...and maybe some of us could look
and abstract proposals from those to set up multistakeholderism processes.
I also agree we should always aim at open standards - which for me have a
intrinsically interoperability characteristic.
Let's be bold folks, but with practical propositions  :-)
C

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>wrote:

> +1
>
> This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
> articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same goals,
> there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving those
> goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both philosophically
> and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described compelling
> pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed system.
> I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made
> about the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and
> creating new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for
> civil society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong
> corporate sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for
> global action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe
> require policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the
> Internet governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about
> pressing our case in the most effective manner available to us at this
> point in time.  Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more
> direct (and democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I
> view the incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly
> NOT detrimental to our long-term objectives.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>> + 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
>>
>>> I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government
>>> for 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government
>>> delegation that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine
>>> why civil society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this
>>> point, they are needed at this inflection point in Internet history to
>>> stand resolute in protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>> On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andrew:
>>>>
>>>> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments
>>>> should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are
>>>> the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>>>> the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so
>>>> for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
>>>> other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We
>>>> should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation
>>>> has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do,
>>>> policy making.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang:
>>>>
>>>> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>>>> governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
>>>> consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>>>> there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>>>> existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you
>>>> will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to
>>>> disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).
>>>>
>>>> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>>>> system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.
>>>> You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>>>> restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be
>>>> a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new
>>>> technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual
>>>> rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in
>>>> particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -
>>>> the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder
>>>> policy development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>>>> stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>>>> coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
>>>> other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue
>>>> by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental
>>>> stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
>>>> countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
>>>> domination and capture.
>>>>
>>>> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough
>>>> consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and
>>>> amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and
>>>> economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to
>>>> move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>>>> represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>>>>
>>>> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>>>> rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>>>> principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in
>>>> line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights
>>>> Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a
>>>> multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a
>>>> direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the
>>>> launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>>>> observatories etc.).
>>>>
>>>> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>>>> Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or
>>>> regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the
>>>> outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
>>>> Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
>>>> Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather
>>>> different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU
>>>> Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also
>>>> Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the
>>>> governments) will keep their own positions.
>>>>
>>>> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>>>> determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>>>> escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day
>>>> all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
>>>> principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN
>>>> member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This
>>>> is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the
>>>> world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
>>>> direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
>>>> violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped
>>>> to reduce such violations.
>>>>
>>>> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are
>>>> moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>

-- 
*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/20140306/7eba4d80/attachment.htm>