[governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

Fri Feb 7 12:16:51 EST 2014

Hi Norbert,

Like Gene, I am always interested in engaging with new people/organisations
on these issues, so do please count me in.

Thanks,
Anja

On 7 February 2014 19:48, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to
> promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in
> engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that
> this lens on IG process or principles has been lacking from the process so
> far.  So maybe you can explain -- is it that you have a different theory of
> how CS can/should seek to become more powerful?  A different approach to
> advocacy than what most activists/advocates have been practicing?  I'm sure
> many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how to
> obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all the
> time....
>
>
> On Fri, 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:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/9fbb472e/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