[governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

[Mawaki Chango]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>     Parminder,
>
>  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> Thanks for this effort.
>>
>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
>> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
>> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
>> decision making on public policy issues...
>>
>
>  I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues
> should be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their
> formal or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or
> the meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
> context.)
>
>
> Would you please explain what that common understanding is....
>

I have tried to articulate that in the current version of the IGC
statement/press release. In fact I have agonized over and tried my best to
craft the wording so as to minimize your concerns by reducing the presence
of bones of contention (have you taken a look at it yet? I probably
wouldn't have asked you all the questions I did in my response to your
earlier comment had I written this version of the statement before replying
to your comment, as I just want us to get this statement done, not to get
us discussing and working on the foundation of an emerging area of
knowledge and practice.)



> Some of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long
> now...
>
> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether
> self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a
> 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is
> only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their
> collectives through some formal political process or formations, how much
> ever inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different
> strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>

For me 'multistakeholderism" is just a fashionable way to call a form of
inclusive policymaking process. I see stakeholders as part of the people. I
don't think people need or should need some validation from political
parties before they can directly participate in policymaking. This may even
happen with traditional policymaking issues (the ones that can be easily
confined to a national polity) if the elected officials are enlightened
enough to constantly consult with the people and the affected groups in
their decision making processes. But sticking to political parties or
formal processes as the sole source of legitimate voice for policymaking
becomes even more problematic on issues where we depend so much on each
other across the world. So for me, while the concept and its implementation
may not be mature, stable and robust enough to stand all relevant tests,
"multistakeholderism" is just an attempt to get people (at least those who
are aware among those affected by the policies) to participate in the
policymaking in some orderly fashion (i.e. the organizing in stakeholders.)

Now, I'm not naive. I know this is far from being perfect and the process
can be captured and become an instrument for special interests with no much
regard for public interest. That's where our focus should be, trying to
make sure special interests do not use the mantle of stakeholders to drown
out the voice and interests of the people. Granted, that's a tall order.
But saying that political parties, elections, or other formal processes are
the only way for legitimate representation, the only way to have a voice in
the policymaking process is where we will have hard time finding an
agreement. Maybe we shouldn't have called that "multistakeholder", maybe
the boundaries of stakeholders are ill-conceived and they should be
something else, and clearly the checks and balances for
"multistakeholderism" leave much to be desired as of now and we still have
a lot of work to do, but governments and political parties cannot be the
only answer, can they?


>
> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding',
>

See my comments/responses above, and the current version of the statement.


> I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme,
> want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone
> coming from a formal political process - called governments - in making
> actual decision making. THis is death of democracy.
>

I hope not.
Now please let's focus on the statement and finalize it (the broader
discussion on MSism will certainly go on, but I personally wish to rest my
case with this message.)
Thanks,

Mawaki


>
> parminder
>
> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated
> policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>
>
>
>   Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the government
> or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have been so in
> some period in the history of human societies but that may evolve? And if
> so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not necessarily be
> clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the
> beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors
> before extending to other domains of governance?
>
>  I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public
> policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce
> them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public
> policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)?
> And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?
>
>  If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
> government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to
> say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is
> unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?
>
>
>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>
>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
>> complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to
>> know more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would
>> no longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
>> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the
>> issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US
>> laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing
>> ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>>
>
>  Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened
> negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a
> position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be
> expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no
> transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as
> guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition
> proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think
> apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the
> announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the
> transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all
> other stakeholders.
>
>  Mawaki
>
>
>>  And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN,
>> in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>
>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do
>> not have customers, only constituencies and the such...
>>
>> Thanks, parminder
>>
>>
>>   On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>>
>>    Dear All,
>>
>>  Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
>> concerns.
>>
>>  We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>  ---
>>
>>  IGC Draft Press Release
>>
>>  On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
>> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>> functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
>> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In
>> that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of
>> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the
>> desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed
>> relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails:
>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
>> IANA services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>> proposal to finalize this transition.
>>
>>
>>  While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
>> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
>> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
>> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
>> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>>
>>
>>  Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
>> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
>> global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
>> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
>> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
>> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
>> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>
>>
>>  Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
>> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
>> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
>> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
>> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
>> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
>> Internet's domain name system.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> March xx, 2014.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/d5bfd1f2/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