AW: Re: [governance] critique of the IBSA proposal
Lorena Jaume-Palasí
lorena.jaume-palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de
Thu Sep 22 06:00:20 EDT 2011
P
Von meinem drahtlosen BlackBerry®-Handheld gesendet
-----Original Message-----
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:50:31
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Anriette Esterhuysen<anriette at apc.org>; Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] critique of the IBSA proposal
Hi Anriette
Thanks for the detailed email. It is helpful to roll thoughts along
together. I will respond to the 'civil society and OECD' point in your
email separately. Here, just about the global IG's institutional structure.
When, as you agree, or at least are sympathetic to the view, that
current IG arrangements are just not working
for developing country governments
and, that
internet is increasingly being run by powerful corporations; that policy
is being made by actors who cannot be really be held accountable in any
tangible way.
we need to either accept the status quo, with its stated faults or seek
new arrangements. What is your view of the possible new arrangement(s),
even if it were an improvement over the existing one?
Excuse my presumptuousness but, I would think that the 'OECD versus
similar arrangement with all countries in', is a clear democratic step
that no one, with any democratic credentials, can plausibly disagree
with, but I continue *not* to get a clear response on that question. Ok,
let me frame it in a different way.
*If today the **OECD**, and thus its CICCP (the internet policy related
committee) is proposed to be expanded to include all countries, without
changing anything else substantially about it, will you (1)
enthusiastically support such a proposal or (2) oppose it. *
Try seeing the IBSA proposal simply as that. In fact, with the IGF
attached to it in a complementary role as per UN GA resolution, the
proposed new body will be even more participative that the CICCP. My
question remains, on what basis do you oppose such an institutional
reform/ change in the global IG's institutional architecture.
As you seem to agree, OECD policies get by default applied to other
parts of the world. Is it not unfair, undemocratic and against the
rights of these other people and groups? Can we simply ignore this
issue? If not, what is your response to it.
You say OECD has good track record on certain issues like privacy.
Developing countries have a good track on access to knowledge, IP
restrictions, net neutrality and open standards (at least, its advocacy
at the global stage), fair and just global trade polices, and good
global economic competition law..... So who chooses which set of issues
- those on which OECD may be good, and those in which developing
countries may be good - are more important? (Echoes here of negative
rights versus positive rights debates.) In any case, in the 'new body'
even the OECD members will be there, and as in all UN bodies they remain
outstandingly powerful. A new body will all countries represented would
therefore be able to negotiate across this whole range of issues in a
much better - global public interest wise - ways. As, we keep
forgetting, they together negotiated such a rich range of human rights!
And in keeping with current times, we are going to ensure that there is
more multistakeholder participation than ever in these processes.
You say that rigid institutionalisation is problematic, but right now my
digital life is determined by OECD decisions. So, whether we
democratically participate in it or not, decisions are being taken and
'governance' taking place. Then, there are general comments in your
email about problems about 'governance systems' and governments being
what they are, and being prone to wrong and bad decisions.... these are
general points, which one can agree with. And that is why civil society
exists.
However, as a responsible civil society, we should be able to offer what
we think should be the right institutional model, and also, as
importantly, our pathway towards it. Otherwise, it becomes abdication,
which in a political space, is unacceptable.
Milton advocates some kind of a new denationalised governance regime. I
have sought more details form him, and he says I have to read his book,
which I have not been able to yet. I suspect he does not have a very
clear vision of what that model will look like in actual practice, and
in relation to the real world we live in, but I am happy to hear more on
that. I think, the trajectory to 'that right model' from the present
situation is not well-charted out, but again I am open to be corrected.
I have supported the general idea of a 'new global public' (actually IT
for Change theorises on this concept in our works), which underpins the
Milton model. However, I am interested in working on practical
strategies as well. But, the biggest problem with the* de-nationalised
model of MIlton's, as I understand it, is that it does not address the
re-distributional and welfare aspects that are required of any polity.
This from my, and most developing country civil society's, point of view
is a non starter. *
I however do give this much credit to Milton that in pursuance of his
political vision, he came up with a specific proposal to make IGF into a
body of considerable soft power, which I, generally, supported ( i would
want more clear reform of the participation model of the IGF, which is
in our proposal before the WG on IGF improvements, before I can increase
my support for this model).
Accordingly, Anriette, I will like to know what global institutional IG
model you (and APC) supports. At some time APC proposed a global
Framework Convention on the Internet, which idea you/it seems no longer
interested in. I have been unable to convince you to work for taking IGF
towards clear recommendations making processes, that being in my view
the best, and the only at hand, practical, way to increase
multi-stakeholder participation in global IG policy making. I was
surprised during the meeting of Working Group on improvements to the IGF
that you seemed not willing to go along with the 'working groups' in the
MAG model (which was also a part of APC IGF improvements proposals a
couple of years back) , the least that is required to start structuring
IGF towards some degree of purposiveness. In these circumstances, I
really want to know what is your institutional model for global IG?
If possible, I will like to engage with APC partners and internal APC
decision making structures to understand the perspectives on this issue,
and if possible, try to influence them.
Anyone on the list is welcome to ask probing questions about IT for
Change's views, current and historically, in the above matter, or on any
other matter. We will gladly answer, in full detail, every time. That is
for us a constitutional promise. For us, this is true openness and
transparency, and the key value and process that gives civil society its
legitimacy.
Apologies for the long email. Too many points in this important
discussion, which needed to be discussed.
Parminder
On Wednesday 21 September 2011 10:38 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I was at the the IBSA meeting in Brazil along with two other people from
> South Africa. Shaun Pather, an academic working on community
> informatics, and Mark Weinberg from the Right to Know Campaign.
>
> I have not had time to share my own thoughts.. or even write up the
> notes from my inputs at the Rio meeting. APC is having an internal
> discussion on the proposals with members but it will take a while for us
> to have a position on this.
>
> My own views (not APC's) are that the proposals should be considered as
> a really strong signal that current IG arrangements are just not working
> for developing country governments, including some that are committed to
> multi-stakeholder participation, and to the IGF, and who have been
> attending ICANN meetings for a long time.
>
> Some of these governments share a concern with many CSOs that the
> internet is increasingly being run by powerful corporations; that policy
> is being made by actors who cannot be really be held accountable in any
> tangible way.
>
> At the same time I have concerns - based on personal and political
> experience - about the implications for human rights, openness and for
> the participation of civil society, social entrepreneurs, hackers,
> developers etc. of more rigid institutionalisation of intergovernmental
> oversight of internet governance. I also have seen so many times that
> when governments argue about multi-stakeholder participation, or human
> rights, that even the ones are committed to it, will be willing to
> sacrifice it for the sake of other geo-political interests.
>
> I also wanted to respond to Parminder on civil society involvement in
> the OECD. My own involvement in CSISAC dates back to its formation at
> the Seoul meeting in 2008, but other civil society people have been
> working at OECD level for a long, long time, e.g. EDRI, EFF, EPIC,
> Privacy International and many others.
>
> My impression of civil society involvement in the OECD is very different
> from yours Parminder. I have never understood that it is seen as an
> endorsement of any kind. Yes, there is a recognition that the OECD has
> had a good track record on certain issues such as, for example,
> protection of personal privacy.
>
> To say civil society 'enthusiastically engages with it' does not
> describe my experience of it. It is hard work, with little resources,
> and requires a great deal of preparation and research. It is also quite
> tough because you have to lobby hard for your interests against people
> from the business sector that are really good at what they do, and
> incredibly well prepared and organised within their constituency.
>
> I have been really impressed by the CSISAC community's voluntary
> commitment and hard work to try and keep civil society voices heard in
> the OECD. It is not easy.
>
> Others should comment, but my sense was that the reason that CSOs like
> EPIC, EDRI, consumer groups and many others worked so hard to get
> recognition at OECD level was because they were concerned that the OECD
> was not systematically including civil society, resulting the views and
> interests of the other nongovernmental stakeholders like the technical
> community and businesses influencing OECD directives at the expense of
> the public interest and civil society concerns.
>
> In other words, it was a move to prevent bad decisions, rather than an
> endorsement of the OECD as the perfect model of international
> decision-making on the internet.
>
> The OECD like the UN and other international organisations have some
> really excellent people on staff who are generally very progressive and
> who do their best to ensure that 'pro-public interest' (for want of a
> better phrase) decisions are made. But this is no guarantee that in the
> end governments will not make decisions that they, or civil society for
> that matter, are not happy with as we have seen with regard to issues
> like intermediary liability and IPR protection in the 'internet
> governance principles' adopted in June 2011.
>
> The OECD exists, and it makes important decisions that are relevant to
> the progressive CSOs that have worked for many years in OECD countries
> to protect the public interest. That is why for them the OECD is a site
> of struggle.. and.. as OECD guidelines etc. are often picked up in other
> parts of the world it has also become an important site of struggle for
> civil society from developing countries.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 21/09/11 06:52, parminder wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>>> While I don't favor UN-based intergovernmental control,
>>>
>> When OECD does it, it is 'policy making', and the civil society
>> enthusiastically engages with it, when UN seeks to do it, it is
>> 'control' . This is amusing!! The power of the discourse!!
>>
>>
>>> the idea's been floating in the wind and configuring perceptions and
>>> dialogue for so long that it would be useful to finally hear the
>>> proponents get up in public and make their case about what problems
>>> require such a solution,
>>>
>> Exactly the same problems that OECD, CoE etc think 'require a solution',
>> and are intensively working on; to whose work in this area, there never
>> seems to have been an objection. Every of their document speaks of
>> urgent need of frameworks of principles, global agreements etc. The same
>> problems, and similar sought solutions, just more democratic and
>> inclusive.....
>>
>> I have thrown this challenge at 'you guys' - to borrow your term - often
>> in this list but without response, and I repeat it.
>>
>> *On what basis do you oppose, say, if the EXACT mechanism that OECD follows
>>
>> in policy making, framework development, etc in the area of
>> international internet-related public policies, with its exact
>> mechanisms of multi-stakeholder participation also thrown in,
>>
>> was to instituted in the UN .... which simply means it would be
>> democratic, a prime civil society value, i would think......*
>>
>> It is by answering clearly such direct questions, and getting into a
>> full debate over them that constitutes openness and transparency, not
>> just by using the power of the dominant discourse and vocabulary to
>> condemn others to evilness of being closed and non-transparent, and
>> arrogating to oneself all the corresponding good qualities....
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> how it could possibly work, why the benefits would outweigh the costs,
>>> how consensus could be achieved and how you'd proceed if it cannot,
>>> and so on. That certainly did not happen within the WGIG with respect
>>> to the three "oversight" models some of the government reps put on the
>>> table (which, BTW, the caucus strongly opposed at the time). It would
>>> be better to finally have an open multistakeholder debate on the
>>> merits than for the IBSA governments to take it to their summit and
>>> into the UN GA without the benefit of this reality check.
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2) During the next IGF, government representatives have accepted to
>>>> take part in several workshops organized by CS that are discussing
>>>> IGF improvement, when they will certainly be able to talk about
>>>> IBSA's aims. So the discussion will not bypass the IGF as you said.
>>>> I hope you will be there to raise your issues.
>>>>
>>> There will be more opportunities than this. For example, I intend to
>>> raise it again in the main session on CIR, which I'm co-moderating
>>> with Emily Taylor, and in my workshop on institutional choice in
>>> GIG http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178
>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178>,
>>> which is a feeder for the CIR session. Tulika from the Indian
>>> government will be speaking on both, as will Alice, Anriette, and
>>> Fiona (plus others here who are on or the other, e.g. Avri, Jeanette,
>>> Patrik..). So let's get it out in the open and hear what people have
>>> to say either way. While such a debate will be divisive, a UN GA
>>> proposal that hasn't been openly debated would be much more so.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> ***************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow
>>> Media Change& Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
>>> <http://www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake>
>>> www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org>
>>> ****************************************************
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110922/2b90c447/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list