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

Mon Mar 17 10:12:36 EDT 2014

Good points Mawaki.  And good statement too.  I do think that in this
paragraph you capture what many, if not most of us, understand by
inclusive policy making/multi-stakeholder participation in policy making.

I agree with your definition hereL

>
> 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?
>  
Agree. And the challenge to prevent special interests from manipulating
policy processes remains. It is huge in traditional
'government/legislature' lead policy processes and it is also huge in
newer and experimental multi-stakeholder processes.

The advantage of more the evolving more transparent multi-stakeholder
processes is that it is harder for special interest groups to get what
they want, because they have to be more public about it.

Anriette

>
>     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, shouldupfront 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 <http://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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/3613a797/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