[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Thu Feb 5 19:14:32 EST 2015

For once, the way David is introducing the fundamental divide is taking us away from the usual caricatural presentation (multi-stakeholderists pro status quo  against the governmentalists pro-statists including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba..). I thank David for that.

Amusingly when Jeremy suggests a more balanced framing, he immediately defines only one "camp", the other one being lost in his re-framing - just teasing Jeremy! So maybe this alternative is simply not balanced at all, or is it just a way to define the perfect ideal camp (with no more opposition). A perfect world indeed.

More to the point, I believe that the idea of trying to find common ground is probably interesting, if not a desperate attempt.

The context has changed:

Because we deal with public policy issues at national and transnational levels, because the asymmetry, the many lies, the refusal of clear definitions, the money corrupting people, the systematic denial of a true common vocabulary, all of that has taken the IG debate from a techno-paradise behind closed doors, based on rough consensus  supported and initially funded by commercial and military "fans" waiting for their bonanza, to nowhere. That is precisely the failure of civil society, of the bestbits, 1Nets, NMIsts, Montevideoists... Because of all of that, today one thing is clear: we are in the middle of a classical political fight. A transnational one. A dimension that gave so far the advantage to the well organized and already globalized digital rubber barons.

Lost are the days when a few would limit the IG horizon and debate, when someone with an "opinion" was a criminal attempting to kill the wonderful wonder. Everyone had to agree with... Someone in the list recently wrote that that the Internet was a network of networks, nothing else,. Wow. I think someone has to take him away from his prehistorical thinking. There is no more Internet Governance. Only a political fight. And because of that reality, when Wolfgang, one master of the status quo's storytelling - remember the un-governable Internet due to its decentralized nature but with its heavy centralized profits, advantages, unfairness - when he comes with a proposal  of a booklet about IG, as an editor myself I can't see what this can deliver, except a collection of useless statements daring at each other with no intent for a true and honest debate to land on a common ground.

The ISF is to some degree, the natural outcome of this long lasting dead-end, when after years of misrepresentation, misguidance, twisting anyone thought or words into a nightmare. Rrespect and trust have come a low point with little to deliver to the citizens. 

Civil society has one central role, which should be in my opinion, dedicated to public interest. The status-quo was never a pro-civil society project. Multistakeholderism was never a program, maybe a screen of smoke. If someone wants to reinvent the usual players in a society, and explain us that because you put everyone in a room, on an equal footing basis, for profit and non profit are the same, that private and public sector are the same, then someone is lying. In a lobbyist mind this might be true, but when talking to a US farmer that can't access the neighboring local broadband because a private company holds a legal gun on it, or when an Indonesian citizen has no idea of what broadband means because the infrastructure is not there, these citizens are not very different from an African or a Bolivian without access to the Internet. Because we have these citizens in mind, civil society should join force together, reject the fundings of the Googles, Carl Bild, Freedom House, WEF and other room service providers of the dominants (anyone wants to tell us about its funding sources?), and fight independently for its true mandate. Then respect could unite civil society again. Probably ISF is part of that most necessary transformation. And we have to admit that one civil society page is closed.

Common ground is where you'll find the public interest. Let's meet there if not too late.

JC 

PS: Greek traditional parties imploded, replace by a new party but Greece has also gained a nazi party, third party in its parliament. Indeed citizens can become really upset sometime. And not just in the Arab world, or in the faraway lands. We'll see if Russian money will be or not the buoy for Greece. There is some Russian money left out there, including in Cyprus.

if it would ever deliver anything, 
Le 5 févr. 2015 à 22:52, David Allen a écrit :

> This could - if suitably framed and presented - be part of a genuine attempt to search out the essential differences between the two sides.  Those essential differences are the necessary starting point.
> 
> Ultimately, to be basis - then - for seeking whether there is any common ground.  On the basic bits, which determine whether there can be commonality 'down the stack.'
> 
> If.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/02/2015 12:08 pm, David Allen wrote:
>>> There is, and has been, an entirely fundamental divide, separating two camps within the civil society gathered here.  Without putting too fine a point on it, on the one side are those who see multi-stakeholderism as a complete solution; on the other side, democracy is the starting point.
>> 
>> If anyone will raise their hand and agree with that framing of the
>> former perspective as encapsulating their views, then I guess you have
>> framed it fairly.  If not (anyone?) then can I suggest a more balanced
>> framing of that perspective: those who advocate for the development of
>> multi-stakeholder models of democratic representation in global Internet
>> governance in which governments do not a priori have the lead role
>> (though in appropriate cases they may).
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>> 
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> 
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> 
>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>> 
>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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