[governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment

Sun Nov 24 13:41:44 EST 2013

Thanks George for a very sober, serious, insightful and dare I say generous
piece.  And there is little there that I disagree with including your
overall aspirations for and comments on civil society.

There are however, two issue themes that aren`t included in your discussion
which come from two separate pieces of my own personal ecology in these
matters that I feel have to be addressed if we are to get to the space that
you are urging us toward.

The first is that you don`t mention Snowden or what we have learned (or
perhaps for some, found to be confirmed) through his actions. What we have
seen in the starkest of terms in the Snowden documents is how important
`control` over the Internet is seen in some quarters, and to what lengths
those quarters and presumably others will go to ensure their `dominance` in
matters having to do with how the Internet is deployed and used.  Your
technical community colleagues have characterized this as an ``attack`` on
the Internet.  From my perspective I see it as a full-on attempt to subvert
the Internet in support of certain interests-and at this point it is unclear
whether those interests are national security, national strategic, economic,
political or some seamless integration of all of these.

Among the most damaging outcomes from Snowden is a general breakdown in
trust (or confirmation of the reasons for an on-going lack of trust)
concerning I would say, all matters having to do with the core elements of
the Internet of which certainly, Internet governance is one. Again your
technical community colleagues well recognize this development (as of course
does the Business Community) and the extremely corrosive and destructive
elements that this lack of trust has introduced into what had previously
been on-going collaborative relationships of all sorts with respect to
Internet related activities.  This lack of trust is certainly no less in
Civil Society (and dare I say no less warranted) than for the other
stakeholder groups and given the lack of normative coherence and even of a
shared self- definition that we witness in Civil Society discussions on a
daily basis it is perhaps even more explicable for CS, even if no less
damaging.

I don`t know what to do about this. Perhaps given the lack of resources for
facilitating the kinds of (generally face to face and purpose driven)
encounters in neutral disinterested spaces that are usually involved in
`trust building` perhaps nothing can be done, but I do know that not facing
the issue of trust directly and recognizing it in its full (and very ugly)
reality means I think that it is more or less impossible to go forward in
the ways that you are not unreasonably suggesting. 

The second issue that I would want to add to your commentary is a different
one and comes from quite a different background.  Many here began this
particular odyssey in relation one way or another to WSIS.  And certainly
for me working in the grassroots use and among grassroots users of ICTs,
WSIS was the doorway into these broader Internet Governance concerns. 

Notably, many in CS see WSIS as a significant success and one whose gains
they currently appear reluctant to put in jeopardy by re-opening those
discussions. I see it rather differently in that for me WSIS was largely a
continuation of the pattern of top-down processes (the DotForce, the ICT4D
Task Force etc.etc.) trying to solve ICT for Development issues without
giving those most directly involved a chance to participate and provide
their own insight into these matters. Few (if any) of the organizations
(including it must be said the CS organizations) most directly involved with
WSIS were in fact, in a position to give voice to the concerns of the
grassroots users or activists/practitioners and unfortunately the train of
failed ICT4D policies and programs (and more recently the quite evident
donor fatigue with these failed programs) is a direct result.

I believe even my first intervention into the IG discussion space
articulated much of the above and very very regrettably I see little if any,
progress having been made in the activities and interventions which have
followed.  Rather I see the matters which would be of greatest interest to
grassroots users and communities perhaps characterized best through the term
``Internet Justice*`` derided, marginalized and ignored; even dare I say, to
the extent that a number of CS groups appear to be opposing a revisiting of
WSIS specifically because issues relating to Internet Justice might be
introduced including by the G77. 

I think it would be very desirable for CS broadly to move in the directions
indicated in George`s piece below but only if done in full recognition,
awareness and responsiveness to the issues that I have just attempted to
articulate.

Best, 

Mike

 *Notably the term ``Internet Justice`` follows on from our Environmental CS
colleagues who are now characterizing much of their concerns under the
rubric of ``Environmental Justice``.

From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 8:59 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Peter Ian; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder
environment

All,

Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and
are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.

I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's
suggestions and my response.

Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would balk
at that, and for good reason.  Instead, I'll just be somewhat more active on
this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical community
that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal basis, I'll try
to do that.

So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if
any of them resonate with any of you.

First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder
approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet
technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent
classical civil society concerns.  As I recall in the 1990s, these
communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet
encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to
explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits.

The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS
process, caused informal differences to formalize.  Issues of
representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes
competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while
informal discussion gradually declined.  Polarization of opinion grew as
willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree
suffered.  

Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community
as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in
the IGF is not properly understood.  At this point in its evolution, the
Internet is a very complex system at most levels.  In order to understand
fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet
administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical
understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level.
The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in
a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform
those deliberating about them.  That function may well extend toward
consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be
discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both.

In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is
extremely important.

Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears
to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of
ideas.  A couple of examples illustrate the point.  To the extent that the
Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to
enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil
society benefit and should encourage their participation.  Conversely,
representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are
very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions
espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder
approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even
denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating
people into different silos.  So instead of recognizing positive overlap of
beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group
separation.

Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil
society."  In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by
the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing
organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the
importance of individual rights of various kinds.  These groups represent
civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate
that stakeholder group.  And although the goals of that group are generally
quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against
other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others.  Perhaps
that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is
not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead
of being siloed.

An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the
world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and
perhaps other large institutional influences.  To borrow a phrase from
Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions,
generally large fractions of most of us as individuals.  

Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder
group.  We have interactions with government and may work for it.
Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization.
Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet.  Using this
approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil
society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil
society stakeholder group.   If we are all civil society in large parts of
our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live.
Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and
has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined
representatives of civil society positions have a right to do.  This
illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really
quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships
between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying
reality,

I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an
approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities
that serve to keep us apart.  We need to assess the multi-stakeholder
approach with that in mind  If it is retained as an organizing principle, we
need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can
minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach.

This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to
understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic
relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and
technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet.  Thank
you for taking the time to read it.  I realize that what I have written, and
any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have
presented above.  However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas
that I think may be useful.  The more nuanced discussion can and will come
later.

Your comments are welcome.

George

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

On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition.

But I must say that I'm unclear as to precisely what role is being suggested
here.  If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices being
articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the community
informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be more
readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community I
think that is very useful.

If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less
"authoritative"/designated "filter" of communications/voices from Civil
Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable
difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern within
certain CS elements of being "silenced/ignored".

(The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as
being more of an "honest broker"-i.e. the question being, particularly on
the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the "brokerage"
committed/able to be.

Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how you
perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role (and
perceive it from a CS perspective).

(I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active
in the Community Informatics community would, by their background,
qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being "techies"
of one sort or another.  Whether they would qualify as being members of the
"Technical Community" (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for
inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC structures I'm
not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical design and
fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social justice.)

Best to all,

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM
To: Ian Peter
Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need
for IGC and civil society Liaisons

Hi, Ian,

Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires.  Perhaps I can clarify
my sense of what she may have been proposing.

There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community
and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society.
Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled
rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the
issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or
discontent.  I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied
line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times.  I
thought so, too.

Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't
welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I
can understand that.  I think that perhaps I could be more active from time
to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some
differences between the communities.  Although I consider myself more
technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I  do have
roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the
expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists.

George

<<trimmed>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131124/ce115a7f/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