[governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Sat Feb 8 23:08:40 EST 2014
I would rather you specifically call for consensus before leaping to an assumption that you actually have it. I did not respond yet but no, I think 1net is open and transparent, and their not including you in a committee doesn't mean they lack transparency.
So no, of you ask me you don't have consensus. Thanks.
--srs (iPad)
> On 09-Feb-2014, at 9:28, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Colleagues,
>
> As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following:
>
> Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call?
>
> Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call.
>
> Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails.
>
> M
>
> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM
> To: 'Anne Jellema'
> Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org)
> Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>
> Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others…
>
> My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process.
>
> By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available.
>
> Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format…
>
> Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example….
>
> 1. Where did 1Net come from? Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.)
>
> 2. When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these? Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions? What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions.
>
> 3. Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net. Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself.
>
> 4. Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. . Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating?
>
> (Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability. Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.)
>
> So why does this matter?
>
> Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted. And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this
> The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website)
>
> and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others.
>
> 1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums.
>
> This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?).
>
> I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made.
>
> I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available? If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes.
>
> In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused.
>
> Mike
>
>
> From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>
> A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending?
> Best
> Anne
>
> On Friday, February 7, 2014, 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
>
> mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446
>
> Skype mnemonic1026
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
> --
> 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 | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/eb8080f7/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list