[governance] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Fri Feb 7 09:24:31 EST 2014
I agree. Please include me in the discussion. A word of warning though, I am tired of US bashing in the wake of Snowden.
Stephanie Perrin
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 7, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
> the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take
> these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict
> with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
>
> How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
> discussion on that basis?
>
> If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
> reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
> going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
> area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
> request to please reply.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil
>> and following the discussion on this list and others I’m 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 one’s own narrow
>> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the
>> significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and
>> their outputs.
>>
>>
>>
>> This isn’t 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 don’t 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list