[governance] Update from today's MAG call

Sat Aug 3 20:42:05 EDT 2013

I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people but with evil aims? 

You are talking about the policies of various governments there which aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure such a simplistic world view would work. 

It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all of industry or all of civil society the uniform black. 

--srs

-------- Original message --------
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Date: 08/04/2013  5:30 AM  (GMT+05:30) 
To: 'George Sadowsky' <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call 

A few inline comments George,

From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call

Michael,

I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table.
[MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this…

In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind.  In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it.  Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism.
[MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others

On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors.  Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes.  The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society.
[MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved…

There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous.  In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues.  For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse.
[MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved.

I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours.  This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over.
[MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary.

In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF.  They are set by  the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors.  In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of  recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session.  If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support.
[MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say.

Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so. 

However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences.  The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such.
[MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large.  That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level.

By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here.  These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group.
[MG>]
Best,

Mike

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

(Sorry, working through my mail front to back…

I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global).

Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders.

(BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.)

Mike

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: Grace Githaiga
Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call

All,

I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it.

In fact, it would be more appropriate if  representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around.  This should not be a top down operation. 

The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply.  This is not true for regional and national IGFs.

Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. 

On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote:

On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote:
"Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". 

Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? 

In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company  decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners.  Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify.

Grace,

Happy to clarify. 

First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable  to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others)  agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF.

Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings,  logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... 

Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that  democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? 

Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position.

parminder

Rgds
GG
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530
From: parminder at itforchange.net
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call

Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price".

Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level.

As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote

".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement."

If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? 

I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it.  If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it.

There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms.

parminder

On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an
observer.)

Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 
2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There
are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries
to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that,
there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which
for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get
so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be
held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is
willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some
preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to
recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week.

The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have
already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have
not booked yet. 

The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said
that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be
commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the
UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a
compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside
the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible
from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the
premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable
price.

So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting
commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has
simply been declared dead.

Greetings,
Norbert

____________________________________________________________
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/20130804/36199204/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