[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Mon Feb 2 09:47:57 EST 2015
While I am all for bringing more voices across civil society and indeed
across other sectors to the table, there is an urgent need for capacity
building given the specialized nature of igov.
After all a human rights or environment advocate can hardly be expected to
be current in all the minutiae of igov any more than we can expect say a
pediatrician to be able to perform open heart surgery.
On February 2, 2015 7:48:22 PM Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie> wrote:
> Hi Avri and everyone
>
> Despite the heat in these discussions, I am more hopeful than you about a
> total polarisation between "those who support multistakeholder distributed
> mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign
> special rights on international Internet public policy". Its possible to
> plausibly stake out a lot more common ground, which I know you too would
> like to see.
>
> My position is that all stakeholders have a full right to have their views
> heard, listened to, and responded to (a right to communicate). That debate
> must be structured and conducted in a manner that the public interest is to
> the fore, rather than sectional interests (the public interest is
> universal, by definition). It is interesting that even corporations always
> argue that what they propose is good for everyone, society as a whole,
> because the terms of the debate have to be set that way - everyone has to
> at least pretend they are arguing for the public interest. (We all know, of
> course, that corporate interest must - even legally - serve their
> shareholders first, representing mainly the wealthy; and indeed NGOs and
> governments harbour similar contradictions, though, I would argue, overall
> not as intense.)
>
> So representing the public interest means that sectional interests cannot
> be allowed to have a significant or unfair advantage. But to assess
> whether that is the case we have to look to the current alignment of
> forces, and away from the 'theoretical' or 'pretend' world of all
> stakeholders being equal and all interested in the public interest.
>
> Currently (and this is a global and all-sectoral phenomenon) the corporate
> sector has huge financial resources compared to everyone else; furthermore
> the corporate sector has key powerful governments on its side. Especially
> the US, but also many EU countries 'short circuit' debate in what is in the
> public interest (in particular as it relates to international politics),
> and identifies the public interest (national) with the interests of 'their'
> corporations. The US is the most explicit in identifying with their
> corporations (though there are in fact conflicting position within US
> corporations), forced by the needs of national political consumption - but
> in reality many, if not most, industrial countries do this. Then there is
> the influence of the corporate sector among NGOs; both the NGOs that
> explicitly represent the interests of the corporate sector and always have;
> and the ones whose positions are subtly or less subtly influenced by
> corporate donations and other forms of funding.
>
> So in the current configuration of forces, it is virtually impossible to
> have fair and balanced multi-stakeholders discussion and debate, because of
> the huge and distorting influence of these stakeholders in the interests of
> particular sets of interests. Even to enter into these arenas of supposed
> multi-stakeholder debate risks given them a legitimacy they do not deserve
> (though there can be tactical reasons to do so).
>
> The WSIS was interesting, because NGOs stole a march to some extent on
> corporate interests in terms of developing positions and articulating them,
> and was able to influence quite a few governments. We were finding our
> voice, there were fewer material interests of people tied up with the whole
> area; and there were certainly fewer links between the corporate sector and
> NGOs (with the explicit exceptions of corporate-supporting NGOs),
>
> So though I support multi-stakeholderism in debate and discussion, making
> it meaningful, and keeping the public interest to the fore gets more and
> more difficult. This, I think, is the 'split' in civil society on that
> issue: Are all stakeholders able to articulate their views of what is in
> the public interest in the current structures? Or do some have too much
> control? Unfortunately I believe the latter and that a serious rebalancing
> is needed.
>
> One useful direction to take, I believe, is to bring in many more 'genuine'
> civil society voices, who are already active in social justice, in
> development, anti-imperialism etc. so that the terms of the debate are
> broadened. The Internet Social Forum, to me, might hold that potential and
> breathe a bit of reality into discussions about the internet and IG.
>
> However, in anything I said above, I did not mention decision-making - it
> was about discussion and debate, and about trying to establish what is in
> the public interest and trying to influence other - including the wider
> public - to these points of view. This is the public sphere.
>
> International decision-making, and the appropriate structures to take more
> or less binding decisions, are not the same. And this is where government
> do have a privileged role. I think this is what Avri is referring
> to: "sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy
> issues" i.e. governments having special rights to take decisions.
>
> Before I say any more: I have already criticised US and EU governments -
> so I am under so illusion that they uniformly represent the public
> interest. And this is aside from the nasty regimes in so many countries
> whose pretense at representing their citizens is far flimsier, and
> maintained only by brutal force and repression.
>
> Nevertheless, governments overall do in most cases represent one of the few
> modicums of hard-won democracy (every scrap of it won through struggle -
> the powerful never surrender power without a fight). And the United Nations
> structures do - few will deny - offer a level of legitimacy in key respects
> that is simply unavailable at the international level in any other
> stakeholder forum. So I do believe that UN agencies have 'special rights'
> on global issues of governance, and of course must be subject to the
> 'special' responsibilities of transparency, accountability etc. that goes
> with those rights. Yes, these rights are regularly abused by many states;
> and are very often exercises in hypocrisy; but there is still a greater
> core of legitimacy there than anywhere else.
>
> So if I believe in multi-stakeholder debate and 'special rights' for UN
> governance. How are they connected?
>
> In short, if multi-stakeholders debate works well and can generate ideas
> and approaches that are demonstrably in the public interest, and can
> persuade ever larger number of people of this, it can generate and sustain
> a public sphere in which governments are forced to act on these and where
> the room to manoeuvre for hypocrites and dictators is gradually squeezed.
> This is also where civil society at the national level can influence the
> global governance level. (The CRIS campaign, like so many, had a go at that.)
>
> In fact I would go further than that. Because it is not at all clear when
> it comes to the internet precisely which areas must be subject to binding
> decisions per se, and which can be subject to simple agreements, a rough
> consensus. It can reasonably be argued that the emphasis should always be
> in favour of the latter, that enforceable decisions should be kept, though
> design, to a minimum; and that agreements, including alternative parallel
> solutions, can co-exist for instance, should be maximised.
>
> OK, crude and simple maybe, but at least this represents a case to support
> both fair and balanced multi-stakeholder debate and special - though
> circumscribed and scrutinised - rights for governments.
>
> Of course, if someone wants to argued that government should have the
> exclusive right to debate and take decisions, and that the areas for
> decisions must be maximised; and others argue that government should have
> no special rights to decision making at all, then we are polarised. But
> very few actually take such hard positions. (Just Net Coalition does not,
> for instance). There in my view still a big area of overlap that we can
> work on.
>
> Sean
>
> At 09:49 02/02/2015, Avri Doria wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one
> >voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support
> >multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and
> >those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
> >public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.
> >
> >On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> >fundamental, that is unlikely. I think IGC should focus on those other
> >issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed
> >be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in
> >a direction the various camps can all accept. While I accept using the
> >IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should
> >expect to reach consensus on these issues.
> >
> >avri
> >
> >On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>thx. for the discussion.
> >>
> >>The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> >>outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up
> >>open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common
> >>languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past
> >>from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF,
> >>UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others. This was workable on the basis of a
> >>principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in
> >>what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
> >>
> >>If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
> >>reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak
> >>seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+ process, knowing that this
> >>"one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is
> >>united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access,
> >>knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
> >>
> >>Wolfgang
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>Von:
> >><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> >>Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> >>An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> >>Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> >>
> >>On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow
> >><mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>...
> >>> WK is
> >>>calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
> >>>
> >>>So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
> >>>voice" says concretely!
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> >>It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
> >>state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
> >>(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
> >>the issue implied by my statement.
> >>
> >>On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow
> >><mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> >>>Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com><kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
> >>>>voice.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
> >>>what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
> >>>done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
> >>>now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
> >>>inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
> >>(you choose your preferred adjective)?
> >>Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
> >>what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
> >>non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
> >>this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
> >>how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
> >>cannot always
> >>do)
> >>and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
> >>among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
> >>
> >>In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
> >>untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
> >>
> >>Mawaki
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
> >>>such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
> >>>whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
> >>>than it would claim to be.
> >>>
> >>>Greetings,
> >>>Norbert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>____________________________________________________________
> >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>
> >><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >>For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>
> >><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >>Translate this email:
> >><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >No virus found in this message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4273/9043 - Release Date: 02/02/15
>
> Seán Ó Siochrú: sean at nexus.ie tel: +353 1 272 0739 mobile: +353 87 2048150
> 14 Eaton Brae, Shankill, Co. Dublin, Ireland
> NEXUS Research Cooperative http://www.nexus.ie/
>
>
> ----------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20150202/e0f760a3/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