[governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:

[Adam Peake]

>Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>As a quick response (on the road, must run out 
>>the door soon), I think we are using the term 
>>³private sector² in very different ways. To me 
>>it just means ³civil society² in the more 
>>general sense that the term has been used in 
>>political theory, which includes the voluntary, 
>>agreement-based non-governmental parts of 
>>society. This includes both business and what 
>>we on this list consider to be noncommercial 
>>civil society.
>>
>There are different traditions in defining civil 
>society. In the US, it is quite common to 
>include the business sector in this definition. 
>All out attempts to delineate civil society, for 
>example against hybrids such as ISOC or people 
>with several hats, have amounted to nothing. 
>Yet, for out own discussion it would be useful 
>if we could at least agree whether or not the 
>private sector is part of our understanding of 
>civil society.



Given the caucus' origins are with WSIS, where 
the private (business/commercial) sector was 
identified as a separate group, seems right to 
say civil society for the purposes of the caucus 
and IGF means noncommercial civil society. 
Wasn't WSIS the first time (or among the first 
times) the UN formally recognized 
business/private sector as a group separate from 
civil society.  Until WSIS, civil society in the 
UN meant just about everyone except governments 
(including parliamentarians and media.)

Private sector coordination in the ICANN context 
means coordination *not* led by government, it 
includes both commercial and noncommercial (i.e. 
private vs public.)  ICANN is a private 
not-for-profit corporation. Private here means 
the same as the traditional broad definition of 
civil society as everything but govt.

So... civil society in IGF means noncommercial.

Private sector coordination and the Internet 
means coordination led by both commercial and 
noncommercial actors.

Internet community... too confusing for me.

(All sounds too convoluted to be correct :-) )

Adam


>>
>>As for the term ³Internet community,² yes, I 
>>understand the ways that term has been misused, 
>>having critcizied it extensively myself. But I 
>>hate to concede the term, because it expresses 
>>the way Internet (and many other forms of ICT 
>>governance) blurs the line between producer and 
>>consumer of information and communication 
>>products and services. As a network technology 
>>the Internet creates its own public, its own 
>>community, its own polity. That is what I mean.
>
>I agree with Milton in that it is worth to 
>reclaim this term. If we agree that world 
>citizens cannot be experts in every policy field 
>and that the democracy beyond the nation state 
>is likely to be organized  by  sectors or areas 
>of interest, then it makes sense to speak of 
>communities who engage in certain areas such as 
>the Internet community which cares about the 
>general mode of using, providing and changing 
>the net's infrastructure.
>jeanette
>>
>>
>>--MM
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>*From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>*Sent:* Sunday, April 05, 2009 7:03 AM
>>*To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
>>*Subject:* Re: [governance] Proposed text for a sign-on or IGC statement re:
>>
>>
>>Milton
>>
>>>Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what we
>>seek. It should, of course, be one in which the 
>>new global institution(s) are accountable to a 
>>broad >segment of Internet society. But this is 
>>the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and 
>>its status vis a vis U.S. government and other 
>>states.
>>
>>I do not understand the meaning of 'internet 
>>community' in this context and therefore cannot 
>>appreciate what you mean by political 
>>sovereignty for it. For us, all people of the 
>>world have legitimate and equal political 
>>interest in all key Internet matters. Can you 
>>please explain why would you not just say 
>>'global community' instead. Any particular 
>>reason? Especially when we both agreed that we 
>>are speaking here of not some narrow technical 
>>policy issues, but important political matters, 
>>for instance FoE and 'access to knowledge'.
>>
>>The political use of the term 'internet 
>>community', in the manner I have seen it mostly 
>>used now-a-days, has become one part of a 
>>dangerous attempt to create an artificially new 
>>global  reality,  with a new basis for 
>>constructing its constituents, *for the purpose 
>>of engineering* some radical global political 
>>redetermination that fly in the face of long 
>>revered precepts of democracy, public interest, 
>>representation, social justice and equity. In 
>>such attempts at global political 
>>redetermination lie the principle congruity of 
>>neoliberal and the dominant information society 
>>discourses.
>>
>>>Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general framework
>>of private sector, civil society based 
>>governance; 2) take an ITU/WIPO, 
>>>pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what 
>>might be called a competing hegemon approach, 
>>in which US contends with EU, China, Russia, 
>>Brazil and India for >dominance, and use IGOs 
>>(and ICANN) as tools when convenient and act 
>>unilaterally when not. The latter two options 
>>are state-directed but the third relies more on 
>>great >power deals than established 
>>institutional frameworks.
>>
>>>I'll take 1).
>>
>>We are strongly opposed to any private (meaning 
>>business, using standard UN terminology) sector 
>>leadership for any global governance model. I 
>>made this clear in my previous email. We see 
>>important CS role in new global governance 
>>models, but there is lot to be done and learnt 
>>in this area, and it is really not easy to 
>>structure CS participation  in any body with 
>>strong policy roles. As mentioned in my email, 
>>we very much encourage and participate in any 
>>innovations in this area (ex, IGF). In fact, 
>>WGIG did propose alternative global Internet 
>>policy institutional  frameworks (see its 
>>models 1, 3 and 4), which  were worth  a  try, 
>>and certainly worth full CS support. 
>>Unfortunately, much of the CS in the IG arena 
>>did not support these alternatives and struck 
>>to supporting existing ICANNist model. That was 
>>our best chance, and it is still our best 
>>chance. We need to work towards real 
>>internationalization of the IG system, with 
>>innovative models that have high civil society 
>>representation. Significantly, more we delay in 
>>supporting and pushing for such new 
>>possibilities, the global environment for 
>>acceptability of anything other than a simple 
>>UN kind inter-governmental model may only keep 
>>becoming worse.
>>
>>To sum our position, we prefer to work with 
>>democratically representative bodies, using CS 
>>presence for 'deepening democracy' at the 
>>global level, rather than acquiesce to 
>>corporate leadership of global governance. 
>>(Milton, since I understand you wont want 
>>corporates to have leading political role with 
>>regard to domestic issue inside the US, why 
>>have different standards and definitions of 
>>democracy for your country and for the outside?)
>>
>>We do realize that many governments are not 
>>themselves democratic representatives of  the 
>>people of their countries, and in this context 
>>we should work hard for strengthening the 
>>democratization of national as well as global 
>>governance. The ruse of poor governance for 
>>privatizing  governance has been used for too 
>>long  by some global forces vis-a-vs developing 
>>countries for us not to understand this ploy 
>>rather well. It has been one of the main planks 
>>of the 'Washington consensus' policies. 
>>Interestingly UK's Prime Minister declared  at 
>>the recent G 20 London summit that the 
>>'Washington consensus was over'. Lets use this 
>>opportunity to move beyond its (more rabid) 
>>sister 'Californian consensus' (the ICANN+ 
>>model) towards some real globally democratic 
>>arrangements, rather than wait for a crisis, as 
>>the London Summit did.
>>
>>
>>Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>>Parminder:
>>
>>Thanks very much for this long-overdue but 
>>welcome and well-considered explanation. We 
>>have indeed felt exasperated at times by the 
>>lack of engagement by IGC/IGF civil society. It 
>>has always seemed to me that ICANN repeatedly 
>>raises political issues and struggles that, in 
>>the IGF context, attract a great deal of 
>>activity but have very little impact relative 
>>to the ICANN venue. And while it wasn't hard to 
>>surmise that some of the logic you developed 
>>below underlay the hesitation to get involved, 
>>it is better to have an open dialogue about 
>>this.
>>
>>
>>A  few specific responses and questions below:
>>     Either ICANN, and its GNSO, is merely doing 'relatively' mundane,
>>     though often important, administrative tasks in managing some
>>     critical Internet resources, meaning tasks that do not have much
>>     political implication, or ICANN indeed does tasks with significant
>>     political implications. 
>>     
>>
>>     It is the latter, obviously.
>>
>>     
>>
>>     However, in case ICANN/ GNSO does work with important political
>>     implications we simply do not agree with much of its constitutive
>>     logic - for instance, of equality/balance between demand and supply
>>     side of the 'domain name' marketplace, or even between other
>>     commercial and non-commercial parties. We also do not agree to its
>>     basic criterion for legitimate interest/ representation that
>>     requires one to at least be a domain registrant. We do not think
>>     that is the point - for instance even in the KTCN campaign of NCUC
>>     on the FoE issue.
>>     
>>
>>     For those who are weak on the acronyms, KTCN = keep the core
>>     neutral, FoE = freedom of expression. I do not see how the KTCN
>>     campaign had anything to do with whether one was a domain registrant
>>     or not, but perhaps I miss your point.
>>     Such 'user' based and stakeholder based global governance systems
>>     disproportionately favoring organized private sector (US-ians may
>>     read, business sector) - to counter whose power is a central
>>     governance issue at the global level - are exactly the wrong models
>>     of global governance to promote. Such models are poised to overall
>>     do much greater damage than good to the global public interest. They
>>     are especially dangerous when they seek political sovereignty, which
>>     we are afraid much of these minor structural adjustments are aimed
>>     at consolidating. To the extent that there is a certain complicity
>>     in the ICANN arena in this regard - including of some of the
>>     involved civil society actors - we must strongly disassociate
>>     ourselves from supporting any such implications of the present, or
>>     any other, proposal for structural changes in the ICANN.
>>     
>>
>>     Political sovereignty for the Internet community is precisely what
>>     we seek. It should, of course, be one in which the new global
>>     institution(s) are accountable to a broad segment of Internet
>>     society. But this is the fundamental underlying drama of ICANN and
>>     its status vis a vis U.S. government and other states.
>>
>>     On the other hand, we can understand and accept user/ stakeholder
>>     models for relatively low-level technical policy tasks, which are
>>     politically accountable to globally legitimate entities (sorry, but
>>     US government is not). 
>>     
>>
>>     Who is?
>>
>>     Seems we have a choice of three models. 1) Work in the general
>>     framework of private sector, civil society based governance; 2) take
>>     an ITU/WIPO, pure-intergovernmental approach; 3) take what might be
>>     called a competing hegemon approach, in which US contends with EU,
>>     China, Russia, Brazil and India for dominance, and use IGOs (and
>>     ICANN) as tools when convenient and act unilaterally when not. The
>>     latter two options are state-directed but the third relies more on
>>     great power deals than established institutional frameworks.
>>
>>     
>>
>>     I'll take 1).
>>
>>     
>>
>>     All  such  governance innovations - out-of-the-box, subversive,
>>     whatever - that look like they are especially pushing forward
>>     marginalized interests attract our strong interest. All
>>     'innovations' that further entrench dominant interests -whether
>>     economic, political, geo-political, class -  are correspondingly
>>     received with strong political opposition. 
>>     
>>
>>     Understand this well. If you want to know why IGP verges on the
>>     status of "radioactive" within ICANN/US/DoC circles it's because of
>>     this. But I suspect our concept of what kind of policies best
>>     overcome marginalization may differ.
>>
>>     
>>
>>     Setting that aside, I see based on your final comments below that
>>     you at least partly realize why the NCSG charter should be supported
>>     in this case. To spell it out more clearly, the reason NCSG is being
>>     targeted by ICANN staff as something to be fragmented and
>>     manipulated is precisely because NCUC has been completely
>>     independent of staff control and dominance (unlike ALAC and the
>>     RALOs) and because the policies it has advocated have seemed
>>     "oppositional" and challenging to some of those "dominant interests."
>>
>>     We will like to see the NCSG 6.0 charter developed by the NCUC
>>     adopted by the ICANN instead of the alternative one, and especially
>>     agree that its direct instead of constituency based election of
>>     council members is  a much better process. It is better because it
>>     has a higher chance of representing global public interest, each
>>     candidate having to muster a much wider support. 
>>     
>>
>>     Thanks! When it comes to the bottom line, I am happy to see that you
>>     "get it."
>>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance