[governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

Thu Apr 23 14:46:23 EDT 2015

Thanks Bertrand,

Serious questions worthy of serious replies…

Inline…

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 22, 2015 4:04 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Cc: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

Michael,

So are non-binding the thousands of "resolutions" produced by UN bodies. Even the WSIS documents are non binding.

And I hope you will agree that most of them are as much ignoring (very often more even than the GCCS statement) some key issues civil society legitimately cares about. All without any contribution from civil society either.

[MG] But again you seem to be missing my point … this, as with how the NetMundial Outcome document is being treated, is neither “binding” nor “non-binding” in the UN Multilaterateralist sense… All of that UN stuff, as you  well know, is being deliberately rejected by the MSists, is it not… 

The clear intention with the GCCS and similar is to enter into a brave new world of “consensus” multistakeholder decision making where a movable feast of (what I’m calling) “unicorns” create these outcome documents legitimized by the fairy dust of being “multistakeholder” but which in fact are simply managed compacts within the very small circle of committed neo-liberal “stakeholder” elites.  These are then  treated as “foundational” and normatively framing and the basis for the next round of unicorns.  This process of building unicorn on unicorn appears to be proceeding unreflectively and with the active support of “CS”  until it is hoped, the foundations and frameworks are so firmly embedded in norms and informal practices that they are more or less immutable. As I outlined in my blogpost this was the clear intention of the organizers/promoters of the GCCS 2015 and to suggest otherwise is I think rather disingenuous.

Even the firmest MSists  seem to agree that the legitimacy of the GCCS 2015, whose multistakeholder and particularly CS credentials are anchored in the actions of what can only be described as an operative of the dominant governmental parties, smells to high heaven. And yet folks go prattling on about these being non-binding—of course, they are non-binding that is precisely the point—nothing “binding” is allowed in this mirror world because if it were “binding” it would need to go through some rather more formal processes with appropriate degrees of scrutiny, transparency, accountability etc.  As with all compacts among elites the “decisions” are being made with a wink and a nod, with the paid retainers doing all the front end work and ultimately being responsible for facilitating “legitimation” in whatever way seems necessary under the circumstances.

So two questions:

1) Are non-binding incomplete documents useless in your view - wherever they come from - or do they contribute somewhat to the ongoing discussion? Faulty and insufficient efforts but at least efforts.

[MG] No, I think processes such as the GCCS 2015 are fine and even useful if they are presented as what they are, private meetings among circles of paid or co-opted functionaries producing documents of varying levels of interest but always requiring asterisks beside them indicating who were the paymasters and what interests were being served… I would contrast the GCCS with the GCIG for example where, it is fairly clear who and what the GCIG is, who pays them, on what ideological basis the Commissioners were chosen etc.,  and knowing that, one is free to take what they say or leave it without all the attendant folderol of Mulitstakeholder “general agreements” blah blah. They  are an elite group of neo-liberal adherents attempting to come to grips with a very complex and rapidly evolving Internet Governance set of issues. They are what they are and no one with any sense would believe they were anything different and having said that, they are relatively free to advocate what they wish and even to come out with what I think is an excellent report with some very fresh and useful thinking. 

2) I still fail to grasp what is the model you would like to see implemented. Are there examples of processes you would like to point as reference to emulate?

[MG] It isn’t me who is making outrageous and unsupportable claims for developing strategies and defining frameworks on behalf of us all (since we are all by definition being given voice through one stakeholder or another, no?). I think the process that some of us are initiating through the Internet Social Forum will provide a basis, through open discussion and debate, for developing and articulating a set of positions on Internet Governance that will give voice  to a socially, economically and geographically diverse set of non-elite actors and then through the breadth of the anticipated participation it is expected that these would become the basis for widely based advocacy and intensive work concerning Internet Governance issues through widely dispersed democratic processes. It will be slow and cumbersome but at the very least it will help to define and articulate a rather more legitimate Civil Society set of voices than those handpicked for the GCCS.

I did not participate in the drafting of the GCCS a declaration but I know that some CS actors have sincerely tried to contribute and influence. Nothing is ever perfect and pointing to missing parts as you and some of them do is a perfectly valid procedure, IMHO.

[MG] But there is a pattern there isn’t there—the NetMundial astonishingly given its co-sponsorship by the Government of Brazil  completely avoided social/economic and surveillance issues, the NMI in its preliminaries again completely avoids those issues, the IGF apparently works to suppress discussion of those issues, and now we have a “global conference on cyber security” that doesn’t even mention matters of social and economic security or surveillance alongside matters of law enforcement and military matters… “You don’t need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing… (and who is controlling the wind machines..

Hope it moves the discussion.

[MG] not sure if it does but yes,

Best,

Mike

Best

Bertrand

On Monday, April 20, 2015, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:

But surely that is the point of my blogpost <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/another-example-of-multistakeholder-governance-in-action-the-global-cyberspace-15-unicorn/>  Milton… Of course, the GCCS Chairman’s report isn’t “binding”, but nor is the NM Outcome document with which the Chairman’s report so closely associates itself; and read this below as but one example (from ISOC) among an avalanche of others of the ascribed status of this “Multistakeholder” document of unknown legitimacy, questionable accountability and no evident representivity.

Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms

http://internetgovernancepanel.org

| MAY 2014

I.              Foundational principles enabling more collaborative internet governance

The Panel recognizes, fully supports, and adopts the IG Principles produced 

in the NETmundial Statement, which “identified a set of common principles 

and important values that contribute to an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, 

legitimate, and evolving IG framework and recognized that the Internet is a global 

resource which should be managed in the public interest” (see Annex 1). These 

NETmundial Principles are fundamental for the operationalization of a 21st century, 

collaborative framework of governance for a unified Internet that is unfragmented, 

interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trust 

building. 

Either “unicorns” such as the GCCS (or the NetMundial) have status and thus should be held publicly accountable to some standards of determining legitimacy, accountability, transparency, representivity; or they have no status and thus their outcomes should be treated as merely PR statements (Press releases/public relations outputs) with no significance or legitimacy beyond the opinions of the selected few who have been involved in issuing them.

Clearly they can’t be both and the studied ambiguity of switching from one status to the other depending on the intended audience is both fraudulent and dangerous.

M 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');> ] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: April 19, 2015 1:55 PM
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> '; 'Ian Peter'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');> '; 'forum at justnetcoalition.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','forum at justnetcoalition.org');> '
Subject: RE: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

I was offered a chance to comment on a draft of the Chair’s statement. I have no idea how many others were, but I am sure I was part of some much larger list. 

I note with satisfaction that certain language about the “abuse” of free expression rights, which I objected to, was corrected in the final statement. 

I note that other items I didn’t like were not changed, and that some aspects related to state surveillance may have been weakened (though it is hard to tell because I can’t find the original doc). 

In that respect, the Chair’s statement is typical of a MS gathering; you get some of what you want and you don’t get other things. It reflects the lowest common denominator of what the collection of folks in the meeting could agree to, or what the Chair thought they could agree to.

The Netmundial statement adopted a far more bottom up and open methodology in its development, and thus has greater political significance and legitimacy in my opinion, so it would be a mistake to equate the two. But in terms of “official” status, neither of them are binding, and in some sense both are just statements competing for attention in the increasingly crowded bazaar of Internet governance related statements. 

Milton L. Mueller

Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor

Syracuse University School of Information Studies

 <http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');> ] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 8:38 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');> ; forum at justnetcoalition.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','forum at justnetcoalition.org');> 
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf

CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this

“The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”

I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be more later.

Ian Peter

-- 

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")

BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE

Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director

email  <mailto:bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net> bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net

email  <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com> bdelachapelle at gmail.com

twitter  <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> @IJurisdiction |  <https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle> @bdelachapelle

mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

 <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net> www.internetjurisdiction.net

  <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/InternetJurisdiction-Logo-w300px.png> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150423/0ebe82c3/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