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

Mon Oct 10 20:32:52 EDT 2011

This link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-cambodia-genocide-idUSTRE7994H620111010

also in a way illustrates the point that I was trying to make about the
diversity of jurisprudence.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/be52e09a/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