[governance] critique of the IBSA proposal

Wed Sep 21 17:41:29 EDT 2011

Hi Milton, thanks for the reply :)
Some brief comments below:

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> ** **
>
>
> 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.”
>

Milton, you are right that the language of previous declarations give a
feeling of a top-down process. I have noted this as well and I have raised
this issue several times with the Brazilian gov. As we noticed, the
political process is very dynamic and subject to changes of conception,
otherwise, what would be the point of participating on discussions, right? I
believe that the perception of IBSA countries about the value of
multistakeholder participation has intensified. We can feel a difference if
we compare the December CSTD meeting about the composition of the WG and
last CSTD. This has been reflected on the organization of a multistakeholder
seminar now. We are building trust continuously with dialogue and I think
that gov reps would be open to a frank dialogue during the IGF. The problem
is that sometimes we jump into conclusions and we jeopardize constructive
debate before it starts. These countries have taken some steps towards
non-gov actors, let's also take some steps and dialogue with them.

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> 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. ****
>
> **
>
Briefly, the strategy in my opinion should be to separate each point and
discuss one by one. I think it is hard to change "new body in the UN" but
maybe "integrated and oversees"gave space to bad interpretation and needs to
be clarified.

>  **
>
> 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.
>

I personally adviced to make recommendations public before the IGF, so
people would have time to get acquainted and are able to engage in fruitful
debate there. Actually, there are several workshops and I think that the
issue will be raised in main sessions too.
I think these countries do take the IGF seriously, for the reasons already
discussed on my last e-mail, so I will keep it short.

>  **
>
> 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 will let the government speak for itself. They are going to the IGF also
for that :) I will just say that Brazil hosted the IBSA seminar in a very
open manner, so the country is promoting MSism internally and externally.

> 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? ****
>
>
This is not what I meant, I used the word "actors" = multistakeholder
regional process. Sorry if that was not clear.

>  ****
>
> 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.
>

Me too. We need to make it also operational when it comes to making
regulation. I am sorry I am unable to explore this topic more right now, but
it is a great, concrete debate.

Best,
Marília

> ****
>

-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110921/770b1677/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