[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Tue Feb 3 15:48:50 EST 2015

Dear all (apologies for long message)

Thanks to Sean for his positive message. I agree with him that "Its possible to plausibly
stake out a lot more common ground" between - he quotes from Avri's message - "those who support
multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and 
those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet
public policy".

At least one way of achieving this is to avoid the tendency to posit dichotomies - for
example to say (and it has been said more than once on this list) that
civil society groups who work for the respect and promotion of human
rights on the internet have abandoned the struggle for social
justice. 

There are many people in civil society broadly
that work for both. Human rights comprises civil and political rights
and economic *and* social rights. At the level of people's
everyday reality these rights are indivisible from one another and
from social justice. The struggle for gender equality is a struggle
for both. And without the right to free expression, and without a
free media, it is impossible for people to speak out against economic
policies and political practice that deepens social injustice. 

In South Africa the only reason why we are still
able to talk about social injustice, and government policies that
entrench social inequality is because we still have freedom of
expression - something that did not exist here until after the demise
of apartheid.

Efforts by the South African government to limit
press freedom, and increase the State's ability to keep secrets, are
constant and both direct and indirect, but they are resisted by all
other than the political class. All you need to do is to look at
http://www.r2k.org.za/ to see how interlinked social justice and
human rights struggles are in South Africa. And I am sure this is not
that different in most other parts of the world. 

Respect for human rights is part of what is
needed to create more equal societies and a fairer distribution of
power and resources. It is not enough, but it is a very important
dimension of a broader struggle for social, economic and
environmental justice. 

It is important to acknowledge that part of the
reason that civil and political rights have had more attention than
economic, social, and cultural rights, is because powerful
governments and corporations promote these rights (selectively of
course) for their own interests. 

But that doesn't mean that those from CS who
have been fighting for human rights online have sold out, or that
civil and political rights on the internet are not important. It does
mean that we need to find better strategies to make progress on
economic, social and cultural rights, as well as on achieving social
justice.

New forums such as the Internet Social Forum
will be, I hope, such a strategy. It should be able to succeed on its
own merits/values rather than on deligitimising work that is already
being done by others. Acknowledging work already under way, and
challenging/supporting it to expand on how human rights are
understood in the online environment to include ESCR and social
justice will achieve far more in my view, than trying to discredit
existing efforts.

Another problematic claim made on this list is
that people from civil society who supported the NETmundial outcome
statement (many of those who were supportive, including APC, had some
reservations - see http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224) and who engage
in multistakeholder initiatives have 'sold out' and that all they are
doing is legitimising these spaces.

Firstly, it is simply not accurate to imply that
civil society activists who participate in spaces that are dominated
by either businesses or governments have inevitably been co-opted by
those spaces. 

This cannot be assumed to be true for civil
society who work in intergovernmental spaces such as the ITU where
civil society has very little influence other than working through
government delegations or for civil society working in
multi-stakeholder policy spaces such as ICANN.

Efforts to bring about change in policy and in
behaviour requires engaging those you disagree with. It also requires
forming coalitions and alliances, but unless those like-minded
alliances interact with actors they disagree with, they are not
likely to have much impact. Interaction takes many shapes: protest,
challenge, debate. It involves finding out where lines of division
are drawn, and also where there is possible common ground or
leverage.

I have never attended a WEF meeting but
left-wing colleagues from South African  and international civil
society involved in the campaign for access to medicines (HIV
retrovirals and TB meds) as well as those involved in GCAP (Global
Campaign Against Poverty) and climate change attend repeatedly to
speak out and to challenge business and governments. Their presence
in Davos does not necessarily mean they have been coopted. In the
campaign for access to medicines spaces like the WEF were an
important battle ground and was used by civil society to gain
government support to force pharmaceutical companies to change.

Secondly, to say that that civil society
participation in problematic bodies like the NETmundial Initiative
will achieving nothing other than legitimising them is questionable.
It will take far more than the presence of a few individuals from
civil society to legitimise the NMI. The NMI will rise or fall on
what it achieves and how transparent and inclusive its processes are.
Those of us who are involved are trying our best to use the NMI as an
opportunity to support the initiative started by the Brazilian
government with the NETmundial to deepen the understanding and
practice of multi-stakeholder governance, to take the best we can
from the Marco Civil and the experience of the CGI.br and make it go
further.

Of course there are different, and likely
conflicting, agendas in the NMI. But are there not conflicting
agendas in intergovernmental UN spaces? 

Sean, I fully share your view that UN spaces are
incredibly important and I also believe that our ultimate goal must
be to transform both global and national governance environments.

To achieve social justice civil society needs to
challenge both governments and businesses. To challenge them (and
their often complicit behaviour) we need to recognise that neither
'sector' is homogeneous, and we have to work in both
intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder spaces.

However, I question the assumption that 
multistakeholder policy spaces are more 'captured' by business interests than intergovernmental spaces are.

In my experience this is simply not true. A case
in point would be the mobile phone industry in Africa. It is rare to
find them in multistakeholder internet governance spaces. It is
common to find them at intergovernmental meetings and in
policy-making processes at national level. You don't have to scratch
very deep to identify which form of 'governance' serves their
interests best. It is not multi-stakeholder.

As a broad based forum of civil society
organisations and individuals working for public interest oriented
internet governance we (by 'we' I include many if not most people on
this list) should be able to benefit from being involved in different
types of IG platforms/institutions. In my view it is an advantage
that some people on this list are close to the ITU, or have ITU
membership (as I am happy to say APC has since the Plenipot).
Similarly it is in our interest that some of us work closely with
their national governments, while others participate in ICANN, the
NMI, or the IETF. 

The notion that only those who have rejected
engagement with multi-stakeholder spaces or approaches have a
legitimate claim to being part of the struggle for social justice
undermines our ability to collaborate, to deepen our analysis, and,
to be constructively critical of ourselves in ways that can help us
be more effective.

I don't want to minimise political differences
in civil society. Differences are real - but this space has become so
dominated by judgemental assumptions and lack of respect for one
another that we don't get to talk about these differences in a
helpful way. Let's argue those differences out in the form of
concrete interventions in policy processes rather than at the level
of personal or ideological accusations. 

If the Internet Social Forum creates a new space
for collaboration and linkages with broader civil society and social
movements it can be a dynamic and important new channel for civil
society working for fair inclusive public-interest oriented internet
governance.

If it is exclusive and judgemental, and
dismissive of the many people and organisations (including on this
list) who do not use the same jargon and who have not jumped on any
bandwagon in the polarised discussion that dominates this list, it
will deepen divisions and is not likely to be very effective in
meeting
is stated goals.

It is also not helpful when people assume that 
the ISF will be exclusive, judgemental, unwelcoming. Let's give it a
chance, participate, and use this opportunity to expand existing efforts.

Anriette

On 02/02/2015 16:11, Sean O Siochru 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.Â  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.Â 
>> 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, "KleinwÃ¤chter, 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----UrsprÃ¼ngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von:
>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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 <nb at bollow.ch> <mailto: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 <nb at bollow.ch> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>>>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> <mailto: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:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 <%27http://www.avg.com%27>
>> 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/20150203/e35dad59/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