[governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand

[Milton L Mueller]

This is a very interesting exchange, and renews my interest in this list. 
I don't have time to respond in detail, but wish to bang out a few reactions. I agree with Parminder that there is, and always has been, a danger that IGF is used as a pre-emptive mechanism; that is, as a generic Internet issues (not governance) conference that acts as a substitute for political contention around the real IG issues and actually delays more institutionalized forms of collective action. The problem is that the parties with real, operational stakes in IG - including nation-states, the ICANN regime and the big private sector players - can't agree on doing anything else, so pushing for more risks provoking their exit. It's also not clear that loose, anarchistic arrangements aren't in fact better for society as a whole at this stage. Be careful what you ask for. Any form of governance we arrive at now will emerge from bargains among power brokers and when I contemplate the kinds of agreements about how to govern the Internet that could at this stage emerge from a more powerful institution it doesn't make my heart sing. The public is insufficiently mobilized and authoritarian forces too deeply rooted in too many places. Take a look at what emerges from ICANN/GAC, for a mildest example, or from nation-state internet regulations (including e.g. France, the U.S. and Australia) for worse examples. 
Second, We need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for good governance and appropriate institutions; MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. 
    
________________________________________
From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM
To: Bertrand de La Chapelle
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams
Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

Jeanette and Bertrand,

First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this procedural part.

However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my 'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement  friendly and  not developed countries?

Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls  within their own territories.

Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of IGF, with no consideration to the fact that

1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to which it does so.

2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make recommendations where necessary.

I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email.

>para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum.

>In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or >No question.

Section 74 of TA reads

"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum ..........'

and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review".

Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change.

In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc).

I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into the oblivion.

Parminder


Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
Dear all,

Parminder wrote :
In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all.

I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD.

The reasoning is as follows :
- the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group
- even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important role in its definition
- the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG)
- para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum.

In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature.

The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF.

Best

Bertrand

--
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t