[governance] critique of the IBSA proposal

[Milton L Mueller]

Marilia,
Thanks for this careful response, it is very informative.
I reply below:

The idea to organize the meeting was firstly raised by Brazil during the CSTD meeting in May (although funding was only secured in July), in a conversation with the governments of India and South Africa, and with civil society from Brazil and India who were there. The main goals of the meeting were to identify main policy and regulatory issues that should be seen as priority by the actors from the three countries and to discuss institutional changes, especially enhanced cooperation. The evaluation back then was that if IBSA countries would like to discuss EC in CSTD and elsewhere, then some clear proposal would have to be advanced, so it can be properly debated. Nowadays people are either ignoring the topic (despite the clear mandate from Tunis) or advocating it vaguely, and this is leading discussions nowhere.

I agree that EC topic has been short-circuited within IGF. In my longer post on IGP blog I identified this as one of the key motives for the IBSA proposal. The problem is that the substantive proposals coming from IBSA always seem to involve hierarchical control and inter-governmental processes. It is a very traditionalist approach which is why I characterized it as "backward looking."

The seminar was very useful to air positions and to understand expectations. With the help of these exchanges, I personally hope that a clear proposal on EC will emerge by September, so it can be discussed by all those interested. The statement summarizes general ideas so I don't think we could possibly have enough information to judge the future proposal from IBSA right now.

Well, it was IBSA itself that put forward the basic outlines: "new body," "based in UN," "develops and established global public policy," "integrates and oversees" all agencies responsible for "technical and operational" aspects of the internet, as well as "dispute resolution." With that as a starting point, it would be hard to go from that to something I or others who favor a more distributed, networked and multistakeholder environment will like.

I don't think this analysis is accurate because:
India and Brazil have supported the IGF, not only being host countries and active participants in subsequent meetings, but also by making suggestions for strengthening the IGF in CSTD WG. You are certainly aware that the more comprehensive proposal to enhance the IGF has been advanced by India,

Yes, I praised that proposal

reason why the IGC is organizing a workshop to discuss IGF improvement based on the Indian proposal.

That's good, but this proposal is "big", it's about the internet as a whole and not just the IGF. A workshop? Bah. Why not try to get an IGF main session on this topic, why not announce the IBSA recommendations for the first time at the IGF for public release? Etc., etc. If IBSA took IGF seriously as a place to advance global internet governance they would do this a lot differently.

And you also know that US was against the continuation of the working group on IGF improvements

Yes, I know. I hope you don't think that I and the US have much in common on these issues.

3) I can speak only for the context in Brazil, but I believe it is fair to mention that some civil society, business and academic organizations has been consulted and involved in policy development by the Ministry of External relations. Periodic meetings took place to listen to non-governemental actors before the government adopted their positions in ICANN and IGF. Naturally, this does not mean positions will always coincide and when disagreements emerge we deal with them. But this shows the level of transparency and the good dialogue that we have achieved internally.

Yes, it is fair to mention this. I have to say that many people in civil society who are on the liberal-denationalized end of the IG spectrum are always a bit confused by the behavior of the Brazilian govt. On the one hand they talk - and inside Brazil, act - a good multi-stakeholder game, develop good principles, etc. On the other hand, in international organizations they consistently push for a governmental takeover of the process and continue to promote the logically fallacious, dangerously arbitrary concept of "global public policy" defined by states in isolation. So we are confused. I don't think the confusion comes from the fact that I and the others are ignorant and not paying attention to what they do. I think Brazil's Ministry of External Relations is holding contradictory opinions and has not thought these things through. Or perhaps they are seduced by the prospect of being a "world leader" and hope to appeal to other states in the UN context.

I hope that you have the same opportunity to approach the US government on IG matters, and that others on this list have the same opportunity to approach the european commission. Maybe we would have less secret documents and negotiations, which were certainly not multistakehoder.

I approach the US government all the time. Mostly they run away...

Here I dont really understand your point. IBSA proposal has to be developed by IBSA actors, as the EU proposal needs to be developed by EU, etc. The important thing if that it is done is an open and participatory way.

Why do you assume that the process must be led by states?

Here maybe some background information is missing. In the case of IBSA seminar, the governments were the first ones to say they wanted a multistakeholder meeting, back in CSTD. And although governments and civil society were the predominant participants, the meeting was open to all those who wished to participate. Some CS participants from South Africa and India were sponsored to come.  So IBSA sent a message they would like to create a multistakeholder dialogue between non-governmental actors from the three countries, although the mobilization of stakeholders needs to be improved.

Sure, one model of multi-stakeholderism is for governments to invite people into consultations where they define the agenda, and then after the consultation they go off in a room by themselves and decide. I favor a much stronger, more innovative model in which the decision making power is distributed and not just the consultation.

I think that it is very positive to discuss sensitive topics in a mulstistakeholder and transparent way, and was the case in the seminar. This is different from the bahavior that has been adopted elsewhere, we should acknowledge that. And applause or rejection usually comes after the idea is fully presented, when things are made clear, and not before.

I am not attacking the seminar, or the role of Brazilian CS in contributing to it. I just think the IBSA recommendations that came out of it, and their plans for taking it to the UN General Assembly, show that the political direction that will be taken by this initiative is unlikely to be one that is good for the Internet.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110919/1e7d17d8/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