[governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

Fri Feb 7 08:33:28 EST 2014

As Im reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
following the discussion on this list and others Im struck by one
overwhelming observation

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in
the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

Thus proposals for this type of decentralized governance structure and
that proposal for the management of decision making through MSism all are
making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite
likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure
the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into
whatever emerges from whatever process.

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
ensure that these forces do not prevail
 that these processes are not
captured and subverted
 i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
institutional mechanisms that we (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
package we are promoting.

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming
resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge
from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in
some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result
to support ones own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests
and what the significance of this observation has to be for these
discussions and their outputs.

This isnt paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
sense.

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

M

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

Dear all,

I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
below:

On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

/SNIP/ 

If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following function,
maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional model(s) will
become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can think
harder about viable routes for an international body or forum to make an
impact on them, which might be different for different goals. Purely through
cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on
globally applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU)
or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind of
WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and sanctions?
Through control of key internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some
combination of the above? Or none of the above?!

One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a decentralised
model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows such a constant
and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal outlined here:
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all issues,
and some issues might even require a variety of organisations/institutions
to lead a process together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such
an approach also has the advantage of making it possible to already move on
issues for which there is wide agreement on the process, without needing to
wait for agreement on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care
of all issues for all time to come. 

Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on provides
as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that have a
stake in that particular issue. 

Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that I
think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
request other UN bodies to take up a matter.

Best,
Anja

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance
To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Hi Andrew and all,

After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to
hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.

First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also
useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. 

- It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.

- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the
more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is
correct...

- I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
recommendations and send them to other organizations: 

a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 

b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion
on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how
does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
international regimes? 

c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 

d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the
IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
the drama before Bali). 

e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
enough voluntary funding to the IGF?

f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and
the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up
to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully

- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight)
ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your
argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
without power and resources. 

- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility
to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that
it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues
could be more carefully explained.

That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
can continue the discussions.

Thanks again for the good start

Marília

Cheers

Anne

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
<mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:

I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going forward
to Brazil. Frankly, I almost dont care what what the specifics of that
substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the window
of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something substantive
from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now. 

Im not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
represents.

Mike

-- 

Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project

 <mailto:mgodwin at internews.org> mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446

Skype mnemonic1026

Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA

INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.

 <http://www.internews.org/> www.internews.org |
<http://www.twitter.com/internews> @internews |
<http://www.facebook.com/internews> facebook.com/internews

From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust the
list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point for
progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
discussions and negotiations can begin. ...

The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
best bits meeting

-------- Original message --------
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> 
Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance 

On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

Three examples might be: 

1.       Net neutrality

2.       Protection for personal privacy

3.       Affordable access

We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that we
call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
objectives both at the  international level and in national policies. 

I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
this in a two day conference

I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.

I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
principles and mechanisms.

-- 

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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599> 

WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights

@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.

Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw
0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>  to report this email as spam.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 

Anne Jellema

Chief Executive Officer

Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 

tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 

tel (US) +1 202 684 6885

Skype anne.jellema

@afjellema  

World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
<http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter:
@webfoundation

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/4bc0bc97/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