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

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

This has been my concern, too, from my very first reply to the initial
proposal, and still remains. We are far from having a homomorphism between
the CSCG member groupings and the "diverse voices" you are referring to,
Wolfgang. It seems to me the most identifiable voice(s) within the CSCG
setting -- in terms of what all members stand for -- include JNC (social
justice) and maybe BestBits (?), both of whom spun off from IGC where they
still have their footprint aside possible other voices. In other words, IGC
which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one voice. I suspect there is
also notable diversity of voices within NCSG although it is my sense that
they have clearer and tested working processes and are more ready to reach
a common position on a whole host of issues than IGC does. Furthermore you
have
on the other hand
folks such as JFC and their following, whom I am not sure to what extent
they overlap with JNC and to what extent they have a distinct voice.

All of this to say, you may go with the above groupings but I am not sure
they will provide a clear map of the actual voices that exist within CS in
terms of families of thought, basic assumptions, visions, goals, values or
principles of commitments, etc. If we can find a practical way to identify
those, that would be great but I recognize it might be challenging. I am
just putting the idea out there so that we recognize that potential
limitation and see whether we can come up with some innovative ways to work
around it. (Again, I also understand that you may just have made the
deliberate choice to start from the existing _social groupings_
 and let them
bear the responsibility to put forward their common voice OR their diverse
voices on the issues, taking the burden away from the architect of the
project (outline of the volume) as well as from the editors and placing it
on the groups themselves, which will not make IGC business any easier ;-)
Nevertheless, this approach also has its won merits.)


Mawaki



>
> -----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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150126/dfec0965/attachment.htm>