[governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance

[Adam Peake]

Thanks Norbert, some comments below.


On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
>> This is a good idea, but, first what do we know about the objectives
>> of the Brazilian government, have they stated what there goals are?
>> Is there agreement on what the intent of the Summit is?  Or is it a
>> complete blank slate.
> 
> I have come home from Bali with the impression that the precise scope
> and agenda of the summit is still very much in flux, and will likely
> remain so for long enough that we have a chance to significantly
> influence it, provided we manage to figure our reasonably quickly what
> are, from our perspectives, the really important and urgent topics.
> 
> The Brazilian government explicitly wants to be inclusive of other
> stakeholders, including civil society, in regard to all aspects of
> the summit, including the agenda setting process.
> 

So we should think about the modalities for that.  In one of the focus sessions the Brazilian Ambassador said when they used the word Summit they really did mean a *Summit*, i.e. high level with enough authority to make decisions (light paraphrasing of his words).  Is this the impression everyone got from meetings with the Brazilian delegation and other stakeholders?  

Such Summits are not easy for CS, we don't have ministers, CEOs, etc that can slip easily into representative roles (and can sense the shoving for those CS seats begin :-) )  

We have heard about some coalition of stakeholders that will work on ideas for the summit, what is this, can someone explain (and others confirm.)  Is it for modalities of participation?  For issues on the summit agenda?  For outcomes and what comes after May in Brazil?  (or all and more?)


> In my view, the main constraints are that the time until the planned
> summit is relatively short, and that it should be considered part of the
> fundamental social contract underlying this summit that the Internet
> related issues raised in Dilma Rousseff's speech at the UN General
> Assembly [1], which has set this whole process in motion, will need
> to be centrally addressed.
> [1] http://www.voltairenet.org/article180382.html
> 

At the UN GA, her principles were: 

1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights.
2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector.
3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies.
4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values.
5. Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes.

And in email to another list Bill Drake wrote:

> 
> To decode for people not in the Bali "coalition" pow wow on Sunday, these are the 'deliverables' Fadi says Pres. Rousseff would like something on in Brazil, and they seem to mean a) an agreement at the level of guiding principles, sort of ye ole framework convention concept; b) institutional frameworks for CIR and globalization of the USG functions; and c) potentially some sort of new decision making mechanism for 'orphaned' IG issues that lack proper institutional homes.  Which, of course, could have been said more directly rather than having generic terms stand in for specific initiatives, but perhaps that'd have been too concrete and 'sensitive' at this stage.
> 
> Bill
> _______________________________________________


 
So this is a good start.  If we agree on these interpretations.

Also worth noting that the Brazilian Ambassador said when President Rousseff said multilateral she meant multistakeholder: the summit would be multistakeholder, Internet governance should be multistakeholder.  I hope that's consistent with other comments made in all the side meetings.  Important this is known and agreed by all, particularly by governments, who might be encouraged to select delegations with active participation of all stakeholders.

Best,

Adam




> In regard to the latter point: I am aware that different views have
> been expressed in Bali, sometimes quite prominently. I am nevertheless
> of the opinion that any attempt to change the agenda of the summit into
> something entirely different from what that UN GA speech was about is
> not only undesirable but also unrealistic.
> 
> So I would say that for example a reform of ICANN's model of
> accountability/oversight could be part of the agenda of the summit,
> but only if this is done in the context of a broader “Internet
> governance architecture” theme that also addresses the creation
> of a mechanism to end the large-scale global privacy violations
> committed by the NSA. Of course there will be no shortage of voices
> that will aim to distract from this point that the Brazilian government
> is particularly interested in. I don't expect such distraction tactics
> to be successful. The Brazilians are no fools.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 


-------------- 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