[governance] Internet G8 meeting

[Lee W McKnight]

My - touche - to yours:
________________________________________

Yes, even the idea of ICTD was born at G 8 meetings, wrapped in very alien ideologies, and it has never recovered from this accident of its birth. We in devleoping countries know how we suffer this fact, and how ICTD consequently has remained distanced from traditional development practice. As a result, the best opportunities of ICTs for development have not been able to be realized.
<
Lee2: I confess I wasn't party to most of the G8 ICT4D phase. But again: that's history pre 2008-9 'global recession' - when Brazil, India, China etc skipped past cliff US economy went over (and Iceland; sad company for mighty US; no offense to Icelandic friends.)

I tell my students there has been a significant power shift from G8 to G20; so like I say if you pull it off, I'll come to a G20 thing.  But G8 was a waste of time 15 years ago and hasn't changed much since then imho.  On rare occasions something happens - G8 ICT4D agenda launch is in that category, for good or ill. Usually it is just a big photo op.  The cynic in me suspects this is more about French domestic politics than world politics; Sarkozy wants to summon Facebook etc, for his own photo ops. Fine but I can't afford to visit -just to be out of the picture : ). 
<
OK in my recollection there was a broader less commercial agenda back then than the 2011 version, back in the day, with cs folks more likely prominent on the agenda.

That is not  a small difference. If civil society participation, or to use a more fashionable term, multistakeholderism, is being pushed back in the plurilateral meetings (with global impact), why is civil society quite. Why does it reserve all its - instinctive and intense - opposition and venom for UN processes, which, whatever else may be said about them, are certainly better than those of these rich country clubs.
Why there is such a powerful rhetoric around the slogan of 'UN (read developing country govs) take over of the Internet' and none about 'rich countries takeover of the Internet in partnership with mega-corporates', which is where we surely seem to be headed. How some discourses are manufactured so easily, and others are simply not allowed to precipitate. While the IG civil society is largely organized around 'UN take over of the Internet' slogan/ banner and it is so difficult to build civil society mass around addressing  the other, now much larger, danger?

<
Lee2: I agree transition from non-commercial (albeit US DOD then NSF funded) core Internet infrastructure to Internet of today remains a challenge for cs. And mega-corporates own and work the media.  Still personally, I tuned out of G8 when it was 7, having found engagement a waste of time. Even back then it was a game just for deepest pockets, so you are right in sense that high-level lobbying and corporate - political schmoozing happens there.  If one for whatever reason one gets close to being part of agenda - it is a big pain and probably not worth cost to any cs org. In my experience from walking away from getting sucked into such things in past. While managing to antagonize....ok never mind, let's leave my past screw-ups in past shall we...

>>

Except for largest/wealthiest cs orgs, it is very hard to play at this level.

>From what you are saying, can we agree then that the UN processes, where at least some openings are always there for relatively outsider groups to participate, are a much better bet for us, I mean the global IG civil society.  But can you take the UN system haters among the CS along on this. Such hatred may still be ok if the same people were not so so friendly with the government reps of these rich countries, and not only that, together they make such elaborate show of die hard support for multistakeholderism in UN forums, and disdain developing country governments, or even civil society actors who may be more policy institutions oriented.

Can we, in the above background, safely say that the multistakeholder show of the developed countires at UN is simply a ruse - and  a quite successful one till date - to resist inclusion of developing countries in any global govenrance regimes for the Internet? Whereby, we must then also question the role IG civil society has, willy nilly, been playing in this global 'game'. I suggest this is time for such intense retrospection by the IGC and other civil society actors.

Some of the above posers may be deliberatively provocative, but we need to ask some hard questions from ourselves.

<Lee2:
All good points; I certainly agree UN is better and more open to cs and developing countries than G8.  I agree with you that it is better cs strategy to help build/prop IGF up than get distracted by G8 summits. But I am serious about suggesting some targetted effort to do something similar, obviously more focused on emerging/developing - nation interests, with G20 as co-conspirators  to highlight global power shift and frame discussions around approaches of interest to - G20 nations; in further change in Internet governance arrangements. A group in which China, India, and Brazil especially have a lot of clout to set agenda. South Africa and Mandela trump all 'Internet' photo ops; so steer a G20 there, and talk up Internet. Seriously.

Unfortunately, in playing media/attracting hits 101, the 'UN takes over the Internet' is in the 'aliens invade earth' category  of headline - it always works, even if most readers are skeptical of veracity.  

So it will continue to be used to grab headlines and for rhetorical flourish. 

And a G20 thing would set off a lot of those types of headlines, even if needing to explain that G20....is a proxy for UN? Not sure how it will be spun, but that is my guess.

More significantly, inside UN and at emergent interfaces to -in McTim's phrase - things that matter to 'real' Internet- processes, like the recent CSTD working group, there will continue to be flare-ups if people closer to the plumbing violate the formulaic but also practically significant multistakeholder input models for policymaking around Internet governance matters.   Though I do agree the level of alarm over things like the India proposal when first released were way over the top, which is why I joined in encouraging discussion at next IGF.

So now Parminder permit the prof to - hypothesize (and I have said similar things before and been laughed off the stage):

One could think of IGF as a people's parliament - on the order of the Euro parliament, ie of limited clout; where noise can be made.  Euro parliament was treated as complete joke and afterthought for first decade or so...now it is...ok not taken that seriously but does occasionally, reflect general popular will in contrast to European Commission bureaucracy.  Maybe not a terribly glamorous future for IGF, especially since noone is elected, but still significant in its own humble way.  

The - executive branch/administrative agencies/european commission(s) of the global Internet - eg ICANN, RIRs, etc, have the power to do things, while IGF can just make - a little - noise and shed light on an issue. If not MAG stifled.

So I seriously see a role for our multistakeholder processes of true significance on global scale.

While agreeing that it is depressignly difficult and slow to evolve from the nation-state model - and help the UN take over the Internet; ) (KIDDING)  

Seriously, as IGF grows into a second phase, it is already more where the action is in Internet governance than G8. Since Heads of State mainly want to be shown in pictures with other heads of state, or Marc Zuckerberg, and not talk about the plumbing of the global economy. ( For example, wanna bet there will be no mention of G8 leaders supporting ICANN's .XXX decision - in G8's final declaration? ; )    Multilingual domain names, now that is more politically correct.  W3C and Sir Tim Berners-Lee are also good for photo ops...if it was me managing the thing.   Phrase network neutrality or open Internet could sneak into declaration, mainly to show world leaders are not clueless about net. 

Anyway, I agree with your observation that there has been no significant change in extant - Internet governance arrangements. And there is more to do. So get me a ticket to a Internet G20 meeting, 2012, and a photo op with Mandela, and let's make some real noise ; ).  

Lee
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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