[bestbits] [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification

[Ian Peter]

Hi Wolfgang,

I am glad you raised this again, because I think the idea is great.

I am not sure that a direct correlation with CSCG and with the different 
groups within civil society who are CSCG members is the best way to proceed 
(eg one JNC article followed by one Best Bits article etc) - because I think 
many of our best people sit between and across various groups and I am not 
sure that direct characterisation of opinions with groupings is always 
accurate or helpful.

But I am entirely behind the idea of a publication which would reflect in a 
balanced way all the voices within civil society, and including 
organisational stances on issues where these are clear.

But one catch. Although I am happy to be involved, I cannot take on the 
central organising role for this. I am wondering if someone else would like 
to take this on - I would be happy to assist, even be co-editor - but in 
this timeframe my time is limited due to other commitments.

If someone with the time available and organising skills would like to take 
on a coordinating role, I would be pleased to participate and help. Contact 
me off line if you wish.

It would be great to see this idea materialise.

Ian


-----Original Message----- 
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:15 PM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael 
gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification

Dear friends,

six weeks ago I made a proposal under the thread "From Confusion to 
Clarification" to produce a Civil Society Internet Governance Compendium or 
Handbook. What was the idea behind the proposal?

Civil Society is a recognized and needed stakeholder in the global Internet 
Governance debate and a needed partner in the evolving multistakeholder 
approaches to manage Internet related public policy issues.
2015 will see a number of Internet Governance events where the voice of 
civil society has to be raised: It starts with the ITU Council IG Working 
Group Meetings in February, continues with UNESCO conferences and meetings 
of the UNCSTD, the HRC, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Conference in The 
Hague, the IGF in Brazil, the WSIS 10+ conference in New York in December 
2015 and others.

Civil Society does not speak with one voice. It is characterized by a broad 
diversity. This is not a weakness, this is a strength. It reflects the 
reality. And it is not different from the diversity within other stakeholder 
groups. In the governmental stakeholder group you have a broad varierty of 
positions - from the US via EU, Brazil, Egypt and India to China. In the 
private sector stakeholder group there are different approaches among 
transnational corporations and small and medium enterprises from developed 
and developing countries. And even among the I* organizations there are 
differences, as we have seen recently in the positioning towards the 
NetMundial initiative. This pluralism and diversity reflects the reality of 
the Internet Governance ecosystem. If one want to achieve sustainable 
progress a rough consensus has to include the main arguments from the main 
groups of all stakeholders. To achieve concrete results openess and 
transparency with regard to the various positions is a key pre-condition to 
promote mutual understanding.

Insofar it would be good if civil society Internet Governance groups or 
individuals could describe openly what they are standing for. To have on 
paper the various perspectives different civil society groups have if it 
comes to Internet policy related issues would be useful anbd could enhance 
civil society input into the forthcoming negotiations, in particular with 
regard to WSIS 10+.

Since I did send this proposals to this list I got numerous comments and 
critical remarks. Some respondents supported the project and called it a 
good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, unrealistic and 
counterproductive idea. Many partners made concrete proposals how such a 
project could be further enhanced. Taking into account all the feed back I 
got since last month I would specify my proposal in the following way:

I. Ian Peter, in his capacity as acting chair of the CSCG, should function 
as the main editor. Each member of the CSCG should nominate a co-editor. The 
role of the editor and the co-editors would be technical. They should not 
intervene into the content of the individual contributions. The six 
co-editors of the six member groups of the CWSG should invite four 
contributors from their group, one for each chapter. It is up to the groups 
whether the individual author expresses his own individual position or 
represents the position of the whole group. Each contribution should be 4 - 
8 pages. Each author would be free to cover either the whole subject or to 
select a special sub-item.

II. The book should have four chapters:
1. Human Rights and Internet(Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, 
Content, Culture etc.)
2. Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime, 
Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)
3. Social, Economic and Cultural Development (Digital Divide, Market 
Domination, Competition, Infrastructure Development, Cultural and Linguistic 
Diversity etc.)
4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols, Accountability etc.)

III. Timetable
It would be good to have a first draft ready until early May (for the 
Meeting of the UNCSTD). The final e-Version of the whole book should be 
ready until early September for use by the WSIS 10+ negotiations groups. A 
formal presentation should be organized during the 10th IGF in Brazil. 
Efforts should be undertake to produce also a paper version for distribution 
at the 10th IGF in November 2014.

Best regards

Wolfgang

PS:
I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in CircleID
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/

w



Hi everybody

After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying 
collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) 
disputes is that there are many different  civil society activists with 
different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who 
want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well 
as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the 
othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has 
similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the 
governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, 
India, Japan, Australia etc.
This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the 
position. So it is about transparency and clarity.

Here is a proposal how to move forward:  We have seen so many people writing 
long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use 
this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue 
papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real 
points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different 
arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.

I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet 
Governance Handbook”.  This handbook would allow all CS groups within the 
CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows 
what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main 
chapters:

1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure 
development etc.)
4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)

Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could 
nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to 
argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need 
for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, 
moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues.

Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and 
would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us.

We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main 
official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) 
until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 
250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event 
in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as 
a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging 
IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ 
process.

The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) 
would be the editor.

Any comment?

Wolfgang









____________________________________________________________
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