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

Mon Nov 25 19:18:22 EST 2013

I agree with much Jeremy said, while, at the same time, I completely agree
with George’s suggestion to strengthen bridges with the technical
community. The conditions for that are created and we should definitely
seize this moment.Thanks, George, for taking this first step and offering
to help with communication. There are some points I would like to make
concerning your first message, though.

In the 1990’s many people still believed on the “independence of
cyberspace”. This tale has gradually faded: it is possible to intervene on
cyberspace, for the good and for the bad. This has engendered reactions in
two levels.

On the ideological level, libertarian mindsets have been uneasy, because
they are uneasy with State regulatory intervention in general, while people
of other political colors believed that regulation is necessary to promote
equality and development. These two different views (depicted here in very
rough terms) are very difficult to reconcile in any political debate. It
would not be different in Internet Governance, despite our best efforts.

On the practical level, some actors, have the ability to play in several
regulatory chess-boards and reacted to what they saw as a “normative
inflation” or a "power grab attempt" by creating their own regulation
through market forces, through code, through network architecture. I refer
to the business and the technical community (of course, I am talking about
companies with market power here, or to business that resort to collective
action). And here lies a fundamental difference of power vis-à-vis civil
society. While civil society capabilities mostly rely on social
mobilization and putting pressure on actors, specially on governments, the
technical community and the business sector have more leeway to steer
things on a more favorable direction, sometimes even ignoring the trends in
the public debate. Regulation through code and architecture can also be
very opaque and unaccountable as we know.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why the business sector and the technical
community, during a considerable part of the history of IG, have been more
aligned among themselves in terms of political positions then they have
been with civil society. And for many years their position was very
defensive of the status quo of the regime. Of course, now recent events
have shown the limits of this political option. So I would agree with
Jeremy: it was not the existence of different stakeholder groups that
created separation, the reasons were more deep than that, and if we want to
strengthen the bridges, the first thing to do is to recognize that.

My critique to how multistaleholderism has been put in place in actually a
different one: because we avoided answering the question of what the roles
of different stakeholder groups were, we ended up forgetting that the
justification for their participation at the table is naturally different.
 Just like companies cannot draft treaties, civil society cannot ensure
innovation. Different topics call for different configurations of
decision-making procedures and multistakeholder participation cannot mean
that everybody is equal all the time, for any topic, in any phase of
discussion. The day we are free to talk about that in a mature way without
being accused of being against MSism we will probably unblock some
institutional discussions.

Lastly, while I take the point that in the end we are all internet users
and part of society, some of us are now "serving" as civil society
"militants" (sorry, I lack better words) while others are politically
active in other sectors, which is absolutely fine. Saying that we are all
civil society politically dilutes it and I think we should not do it, even
with the positive goal of reaching more proximity and understanding.

Having said that, I need to mention again that the world is different, the
IG regime is changing fast and I do think that positions are converging
(although it is too early to say they are one). Many people across all
stakeholder groups think that we need improvement, that we need a set of
clear principles and that we need more respect for human rights. I think  that
1net gives us the possibility to continue in this process of approximation
and allow us to coordinate to the important discussions to come. That is
why I wholeheartedly wish that this platform succeeds as a way for
coordination, not only for the Brazilian meeting, but also beyond. And any
one that would like to help, as bridge, broker or communicator between
stakeholder groups would have my support.

Best wishes

Marília

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  On 25/11/13 00:59, George Sadowsky wrote:
>
> *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.
>
>
> (Since the above was reposted from an ISOC list, I'm just reposting the
> reply that I sent there.)
>
> More importantly that tension reflects real power differences between the
> groups overall, not just the fact that they have been divided into silos,
> as if that had created an artificial rivalry like between football teams.
> Civil society does not push back for the sake of pushing back.  We do so in
> response to the misuse of power against the interests of the powerless.
>
> Whilst I agree with you that civil society should extend beyond organised
> civil society, the latter can't be dismissed or sidelined on the basis that
> it is somehow separated from the rest.  We are connected to people at
> large, even though it is not always through representative structures
> (though it often is, as in the case of my organisation and its members),
> but also through research and project work.
>
> So when broad segments of (organised) civil society may seem at times to
> be critical of the (organised) technical community this is not general
> antagonism, but a response to specific positions that the technical
> community has consistently taken that we perceive as against the broader
> public interest.  Its long-standing opposition to reforms to Internet
> governance arrangements is an example case of this.
>
> Now, when suddenly the sands have shifted, and some of the leading
> organisations of the technical community are now more receptive to
> significant Internet governance reforms, it shouldn't be that we are the
> ones being criticised for our caution about your latest bridging cum
> advocacy initiatives (like 1net).  After all, we are not the ones who have
> shifted our position!
>
> In the long run, I do agree that it would be great if the non-governmental
> and non-private sector technical community could be merged back into
> mainstream civil society for purposes of representation in Internet
> governance processes, but this can't be forced.  There needs to be good
> faith shown on all sides, along with willingness to compromise, and a
> letting go of the reins.
>
> PS. For time management reasons, I will be neither reading nor replying to
> email from Tuesday to Friday.  Apologies in advance for any inconvenience.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the
> global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131125/0aead014/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