[governance] Multi-stakeholder participation on internet governance - paper available online

Mon Oct 10 19:43:03 EDT 2011

Hi Marilia,

This was very interesting reading and I would just like to make a few
observations.

On page 4 of your paper, you highlight that the definition of Internet
Governance (as per WGIG 2005 Report) sets the parameters for how people are
to engage in internet governance and I think you used" how actors are to
engage in internet governance". You mention that it all actors have equal
importance and you mention that participation of non-state actors should not
take place on an *ad hoc* basis, depending upon invitation or depending on
the subject, as commonly happens in the discussion of other international
issues. You also pointed to the final documents in both cases of the WSIS
did not specify their roles and responsibilities in internet governance. I
like how you talked about the strengths and weaknesses of that. I would like
to add on to the strengths of it not specifying the roles and
responsibilities. I think it is important that it is not prescribed.

Even without the WGIG defining internet governance, the reality is states or
governments are mandated by the people (in countries that have elections -
social contract #referendum #voting ) to govern, the private sector often
called the engines and drivers of national economy are called to operate
their businesses. Civil society (in countries that encourage the presence of
civil society, there are jurisdictions who struggle to be heard eg. Iran,
Yemen, Fiji etc) have a role to act as watchdogs and to look out for the
interests of the marginalised.

How government functions in Iran is different from how government functions
in Australia etc. Similarly, civil society in South Africa will be different
from civil society in Nauru. There are different contexts and the plurality
of jurisprudence is clear. Similarly private sector in Spain is different
from private sector in the Pacific. Behind the "seen" or visible realms and
the reasons for this are varied and it could include things like approaches
to "regulations" by the state, political will etc. Things like universal
service and access, there are diverse views on how to better give access to
the underserved, some say that there should be things like Universal Service
Obligations (USOs) and some believe that is archaic but that effective
competition is far better able to sustainably allow underserved communities
to have better access. The beauty about IGF is that it allows everyone to
come equally to the table without having their role defined to discuss on an
equal footing lessons and challenges to enable each other to develop and
leapfrog.

This was why it was interesting to see "VIP" badges at the IGF. One
transcendent thing about the Internet is the manner in which it is
equalising and democratising power, in terms of the "user perspective) for
example you have Parliamentarians in Europe who are conscious about how they
behave. There are still jurisdictions in the world where authority figures
do not want to be "transparent". I had mentioned that governments all over
the world behave differently not only because they are in different
geographical locations, but have different contexts and subject to different
jurisprudence which causes them to behave differently and as such laws and
regulations, norms are different. It is kind of like where you can expect
skimpy dressing in Bondi  and for someone to be covered up in Afghanistan.

Similarly countries differ in how they view privacy and censorship because
governments behave differently. The danger of defining the roles and
responsibilities of actors in internet governance is that in our attempt for
efficiency, we then endanger vulnerable groups. Imagine  civil society in a
country where free speech is codified to be allowed and permitted but on the
ground is treated as sedition. The IGF like a market is able to set its own
tempo without being regulated. The danger of regulating the market or the
IGF is that there will be conflicting applications. Governments already
regulate ISPs in their countries and set rules for competition and drive
policy. We already have the ITU, WTO, WIPO that looks after ICT and work
towards to improving policy and building capacity. Remember we have some
intergovernmental institutions that are on record for having views that the
internet should be patented, see:
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/08/wipo-boss-the-web-would-have-been-better-if-it-was-patented-and-its-users-had-to-pay-license-fees.html

There are developing countries whose governments do not believe that the
private sector nor civil society should be consulted when making policy and
decisions. Would defining their roles and responsibilities create any impact
in the domestic context. From my observations, at least in my part of the
world, it would not. What is needed is the creation of a safe place where
people can dialogue where Governments can come in time to learn and
see/witness the tangible benefits of a multi-stakeholder dialogue and
discussion that is not regulated nor prescribed.

To seek to have the IGF to be absorbed into the multilateral framework is to
seek to have ITU to absorb the IGF. Would it not be better that we retained
the IGF multistakeholder process independent and open and lobby to have the
ITU be more inclusive of involving others into their working groups other
than the current paying members which are largely governments and
corporations that can afford the levies.

In terms of increasing participation and meaningful participation, there are
people who are doing what they can to increase participation and educate
their regions on internet governance and whilst the pace seems slow there is
powerful collaboration between actors and industries as they gather to work
together. To increase participation, we have to work together with the IG
Secretariat and stakeholders and map out ways to increase and strengthen
participation but in my mind, the absorption into the UN system is not the
answer.

I think we should ask people what they want to see before we dialogue on
methodology that way the discussion on methodology can be fruitful.

Best,

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We would like to share with you the paper "Multi-stakeholder participation
> on internet governance: An analysis from a developing country, civil society
> perspective", written by myself and Carlos Affonso, from the Center for
> Technology and Society of Getulio Vargas Foundation - Brazil, available
> from:
>
> http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/governance/multi-stakeholder-participation-internet-governanc
>
> This paper is part of APC´s Network of networks initiative. We would like
> to thank very much APC, specially Valeria Betancourt and Pablo Accousto, for
> the support and patience.
>
> Any comments or suggestions are very much welcome.
>
> Best wishes,
> Marília and Carlos Affonso
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111011/d2ef60d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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