[governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance

Mon Nov 18 05:02:38 EST 2013

+1 to J. Curran latest post here.

ICANN has no legitimacy to choose CS members ("representatives") to a group
they have decided to form? I don't get that. ICANN includes CS members,
doesn't it? What else is the ALAC crowd if not CS? And we've seen
non-commercial stakeholder group members making it from the GNSO council to
the Board, do they cease then being CS? I think we need to stop that kind
of complaining! What makes us more legitimately CS than others? Just
because we talk IG all days and all day long? It's like we are now assuming
that CS means professional CS, those making their living in or with CS
organizations, whereas the peasant who is not aware of your existence is
just as CS as you, just like any other citizen who may be aware of it but
doesn't engage with you or in this circle. Now, ICANN perfectly has the
right to bypass IGC+BB and choose CS from wherever to be part of a group
they initiate, whether from inside its community or from outside of it
(including the peasant, if they so desire.)

So please stop thinking that IGC and BB are the only path to "legitimate"
and "global" CS representation (or rather, inclusion) when it comes to
Internet policy. ICANN decided to form the strategic panels, we didn't.
They had their goals when they made that decision. So if this "high-level"
group just announced now stands in for the 5th panels planned, why should
we be surprised they decide unilaterally (after calling for an unrestricted
show of interest to be a member, mind you) on the membership, as has been
pointed out? If we had been producing some substantive outputs about
evolving IG etc., then someone would be paying attention and it would have
been understandably troubling for us to see that none of our effort is
being taking into account. ICANN or any other structure which has the
autonomy to act could include individuals who happen to be in these groups
(IGC and BB) but I submit that would be because those individuals may have
done some remarkable and relevant job somewhere (working groups, task
forces, etc.), certainly not just because of their membership here. CS
members broadly speaking are not that scarce to find outside here, you
know, and we don't represent as much as we think we do.

As a reminder, following is what I wrote in connection to this more than a
month ago in our discussion following the announcement of the "summit" then.

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
Anja has a point... and so does Parminder. We wouldn't want this initiative
to set in as one of two leaders of two camps, with CS being only reactive
(as often) after the details of the initiative are defined, or even after
that narrative about the initiative is widely publicized. I have to say I'm
a little surprised, for all the energy and time we have spent debating
ourselves and against each others over the last too many months, and too
many other months before that, and again before, etc. we do not have at
this point a compiled list of critical questions, items, issues we think
are priorities that need to be addressed as part of international policy
for the global internet governance.

Ideally, the existence of such list would have helped address the two
perspectives: Put international CS on the map within a couple of days after
the news emerged and yet in a way that is even more substantive than the
initiative itself in its initial form. Imagine that! Maybe those high-level
leaders and their institutions would now be reacting to CS in the process
of moving their agenda forward on this.

And I shall add that exactly was the challenge put before us by the Indian
Minister we met in Baku. To paraphrase, he basically said and asked: You
(CS) know as well as we (Govt.) do that these issues are complex, and there
is no simple, one-sided solution. As the challenges of the internet
continue to manifest themselves, governments will always try to do what
they do best (at least from the standpoint of states), the best way they
know. But in the meantime what are you CS proposing? How can you help us do
what needs to be done without unwanted collateral damages (wrt the rights
of honest people, etc.)? (Or something along those lines.) I know there are
individuals among us who have been doing substantive work, including
research. But as a whole, we CS enjoy chatters. We always seem to want to
have a place at the table before thinking things through. And we put our
small money where our mouth is, that is, in chatters. And our energy in
contentious useless debates.
...

Best,

Mawaki

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Some related links:
>
>
> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/11/global-panel-address-future-internet-governance
>
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131117_high_level_panel_formed_on_the_future_of_internet_governance/
>
> Sala
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:36 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:40 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil
> society
> >>> representatives
> >>
> >> Are they "representatives"?
> >
> > I don't believe that any of them are there in anything other than their
> > individual capacity.  I certainly don't consider them a priori to be
> > representative of my views, but I will welcome their report and hope
> > to find it informative in some manner.
> >
> > Note - there's nothing to prevent another group from forming a "Higher-
> > Level Panel on the Future of Internet Governance" (or a "Lower-level
> > Panel" or "Panel of the True Experts on Internet Governance"), and
> > then producing their own report for input to the Brazil meeting.  I
> > thought that the announcement of this particular panel may be of some
> > interest to the CS community and hence my email.
> >
> > FYI,
> > /John
> >
> > Disclaimers: My views alone; no panel was consulted in their preparation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131118/062154ce/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