AW: AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel)

Wed Apr 24 05:47:02 EDT 2013

Dear Parminder,

I am afraid I have to disagree with you here: no, you did not have your facts right. In fact, you did not check them but relied on your interpretation of what you heard from Jeanette. Your claim was there were no industry representatives on the commission and I proved that you were wrong in making that statement or claim, since two of the experts were industry representatives. The fact that they were named experts does not disqualify them from being industry representatives. And what is wrong if they were nominated by political parties? I have no insight into the selection process, but see no wrong up-front with experts being nominated by the political parties that have been democratically elected by the citizens of the country. Looking at the parliamentarian document issued by all of the parties represented in parliament to institute the parliamentary Internet Enquete Commission (http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/009/1700950.pdf), it seems that all of the parties jointly agreed on the nomination and selection process. The two ruling parties in the coalition government got to nominate 9 experts, whereas the three opposition parties together got to nominate 7 experts.

But the point is: you claimed there were no industry reps and I proved you wrong. One of them is the managing director of the German federal ICT business association, so be assured he is representing his industry, no matter how he was nominated or selected. The other has been until this month a representative of one of the biggest ISPs in Europe who also happens to lecture about the Internet at a university. That does neither disqualify him as an industry representative nor as an expert, on the contrary. And the businessman who has been elected into parliament will surely represent the citizens who elected him, but I am equally sure that he will not do anything that would be against his own fundamental business interests and personal convictions. So I posit that he will at least have some business concerns on his personal agenda.

But I guess you just wanted to rant against the nomination and selection process in general as part of a bigger agenda of yours. As I said, I have no insight into how this selection process worked, but there was no objection from German stakeholders, so why should there be an objection from India, when the commission has now done its job and delivered its final report? I have not made a claim that the German model should be adopted globally, only that the Germans seemed to be happy with the way these stakeholder reps were selected by the parliament for their own national parliamentarian Internet commission. You on the other hand have used this thread to bring up the Indian proposal for internationalisation of ICANN. I think you are riding your personal agenda here which I have no inclination to get involved in. 

And no, I did not claim that the IGF MAG was less multi-stakeholder than the German commission. I said, in reply to your question whether I consider the above selection process sufficient for claiming multi-stakeholderism, “probably as much as”, which for me carries the meaning: “about the same as”, i.e. not claiming that one process was superior to the other. 

As to your new question: “I simply ask, would you take a global commission on the Internet with half the members who are 'experts' nominated by various political factions in the UN - say, the regional groups or OECD country, G 77 etc groups  - as a multistakeholder body?”

I think there is a big difference between “political factions” in the UN system, which is per se an inter-governmental system, and the political parties being elected by the citizens of a country in a democratic way. I would have a problem if political factions who are not democratically elected would select a multi-stakeholder body. On the other hand, I have no insight either into how the final selection process in the UN works for the IGF MAG or other processes involved in selecting multi-stakeholders. All we know that each stakeholder group may make nominations, but how does the final selection work? Do you know who makes the final decisions, who is being consulted in the process about the electability of one or the other candidate? 

But I know I cannot win an argument against you in this forum, even if I wanted to. You are far more experienced in twisting words and meanings and playing on words to make one’s mind spin. So, I don’t want to win this argument and would prefer to let this rest here, though I am sure you will want to have the last word. You may have it. :-)

Cheers.

Peter 

Von: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Gesendet: 24 April 2013 10:56
An: Peter H. Hellmonds
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel)

On Wednesday 24 April 2013 01:38 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:

Parminder, please check your facts before making such claims:

"For instance, no industry representative here."

I know personally at least two business representatives plus one parliamentarian who also runs his own business. 

Dear Peter

I went by what a member of the commission, Jeanette, told us. To quote " 50% of its membership consists of members of the parliament and 50% of experts appointed by the parliamentary factions, depending on their relative size" . So I really got my facts right here.

It is strange that you consider a parliamentarian who may also run his own business as an industry representative.  I am sure the concerned parliamentarian will better like to describe himself as a people's representative, which is what he is.  I thought stakeholder group  representatives were those whom stakeholder groups expressly put forward as their representative. But it seems more you venture into the multistakeholderism world, the less you are clear about it. 

You say at least two business representatives other than the parliamentarian  - who I understand were 'experts' nominated by political parties. Now that makes them experts nominated by political parties and not industry representatives, never mind what profession that may  pursue. 

But let me not argue with you. But I can at least hope that you will apply definitions consistently. I simply ask, would you take a global commission on the Internet with half the members who are 'experts' nominated by various political factions in the UN - say, the regional groups or OECD country, G 77 etc groups  - as a multistakeholder body? 

As to your question:

"Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder?"

Probably as much as a selection of stakeholder reps for the IGF MAG by the UN 'black box' which has been accepted by participants in the IGF. 

So, now IGF MAG is less multi-stakeholder than the German parliamentary commission. Interesting perspective :). 

I'm sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can say more about the selection process in the German national Internet Enquete  Commission. 

Jeanette has described the process quite specifically, and it follows the pattern of parliamentary committees in many democracies. But happy to hear more details.

parminder 

Regards,

Peter 

On 24.04.2013, at 03:54, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

On Tuesday 23 April 2013 10:04 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:

First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages report, but to the 48 pages “executive summary”. 

As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature:

·        The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17 parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so this was a multistakeholder commission. 

Peter,

 (Parminder) 17 members not from other stakeholder groups, but 'experts' nominated by political parties in proportion of their strength in the parliament, right! For instance, no industry representative here. Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder? If so, I can tell you that UN has endless number of committee consisting of such experts, doing very important work. 

·        The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly contribute and comment on the proceedings.

Regarding Internet Governance:

The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and Internet Governance is here: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf

The recommendation of this report is to keep the established governance framework and to protect the freedom and open character of the Internet. To assure the government is kept abreast of changes, there shall be a regular monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder participation in national and international governance issues shall be further strengthened. There shall be no new governmental or intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions as long as the existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and free Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN and IANA

(Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a penny more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond generic statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory structure could look like. We, as in IT for Change, have tried to present some structural possibilities and trigger a debate here in the IGC. But coming from the Southern side, all that looks like so explosive, betrayal and so on.....  Now since a German nationally constituted 'multi-stakeholder' commission also calls for a new 'supervisory structure' can we at least now debate the possible contours of one...

parminder 

and suggests more engagement by the German government and the EU. To enable that, German ministries should get expanded funding to enhance their support for multistakeholder participation. The IGF should get German funding through the trust fund managed by  UN DESA.

There is a lot more, but this summarizes some of the main points. Jeanette has already provided some background into the general working of the commission. I’m sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can shed some more light on the content of the Internet Governance debate. Throwing the text through an automatic translation engine might also help to access its contents for those who don’t understand sufficient German. 

-- Peter

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: 22 April 2013 07:18
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel)

On Monday 22 April 2013 02:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

Very interesting material. 

Link to final report: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf

Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might summarize the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for global internet governance? : )

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html

While one awaits further information, one thing is clear from the referred news item that the Commission strongly underscored the importance of cross cutting Internet-related public policy issues in asking the "German government to get more serious about Internet-related issues" and in seeking the setting up a new committee of the parliament for Internet-related public policy issues . To me, it closely parallels the Indian demand for the UN Committee on Internet-related Policies. The overall logic and justifications are very similar, especially with what we all recognise as an inherently global nature of the Internet.

Will be interesting to know if the prosed German Parliamentary Committee will have similar levels of multistakeholder engagement as the India' proposed UN CIRP.  And I quote from the CIRP proposal so that people/ we can make a comparison. 

(quote from UN CIRP proposal begins)

It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the private sector, intergovernmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP . The meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two. 

(ends)

With further elaboration in the Annexure to the CIRP proposal 

(quote begins)

Multistakeholder participation: Recognizing the need to involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups  one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, InterGovernmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community  will be established, to assist and advise the CIRP . These Groups would be self organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP , Their meetings will be held back to back with the meetings of the CIRP , so that they are able to provide their inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP .

Links with the IGF: Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the lGF along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP . An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP , will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. 

(ends)

Parminder 

Lee

  _____  

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel)

In Germany.  

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130424/6552c6a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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