[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Fri Feb 6 12:38:32 EST 2015

David, in the below you do two things-give a screed on behalf of ICANN and
identify a number of issues well worth further exploring outside of the
hurly burly of a public email list.

Re: ICANN.  I consider ICANN to be an agency with a responsibility to pursue
the global public interest.  Its internal accountability is of course
important given that it has access to considerable funds (derived
recurrently as a "tax" on global internet users). However, what I think is
rather more important is how it structures its external accountability i.e.
its accountability to global Internet users (which I have argued elsewhere
is now effectively everyone in the world).  

I would be delighted to be pointed in the direction of materials describing
how ICANN intends to facilitate the latter type of global external
accountability within a commitment to democratic governance as this would be
a useful contribution to the on-going discussion on how mechanisms to ensure
democratic governance of and through the Internet might be framed.

I would further be delighted to engage with you or others in serious and
in-depth discussion on the various additional issues of democracy, MSism,
accountability, governance and so on that have been identified.
Unfortunately to date no appropriate "neutral" venue or other circumstance
has been forthcoming to enable and support such discussions. Perhaps as I
mentioned in my earlier note, ICANN might be induced to divert some of its
"public" funding to supporting such an activity which to my mind would
clearly be in the broader public interest.

M

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:40 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 6 Feb 2015, at 7:20 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Unfortunately Jeremy, your "balanced framing" begs the most fundamental
questions, which I, at least, have been asking for some specific answer for,
for some time (this is at least the 3rd time that I have presented the
following questions in one or another form).  

Perhaps now would be a good time for you or someone to actually give some
detail on what is meant by:
a. multstakeholder models--which ones, how are they structured, what are the
internal/external accountability mechanisms etc.etc.--you know the normal
things that people might expect to know if they are being asked to commit
their and our futures to these "models"--or are we all now to give up these
questions since the elites have decided that these matters are of interest
and are seeming to be proceeding with or without the consent of the
governed.

            I think you have the process backwards somewhat, Michael. For
example, there is a really large, complex process looking very seriously at
accountability mechanisms within ICANN right now. There are cross community
working groups, multiple work streams, proposals and discussion flying
around, and it is deeply intertwined with the IANA transition process. A lot
of really significant accountability changes are being canvassed, such
external review processes, mechanisms to remove board members, etc. For
those civil society groups engaged with ICANN, this is occupying a great
deal of our time. You are asking to fully understand the accountability
mechanisms within complex organisations before you commit to becoming
involved. I think if you wish to have good accountability within those
structure, become involved and fight for it. 

https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability

            And information about the accountability mechanisms that already
exist is not hard to find at all. Want to know about accountability
mechanisms within ICANN?

Start here, spend a few hours reading, you'll know more than most ICANN
participants

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/accountability-en

The ATRT reports are perhaps not the best place to start for an outsider,
but they are well worth a read, with a LOT of information about ICANN
accountability and transparency mechanisms and how they work in practice,
from independent review processes that include both genuine outsiders and
knowledgable ICANN insiders (Avri was on the second ATRT, and did a lot of
great work). 

            I don't think there is a fundamental disagreement on the
principles of accountability between JNC and groups like NCSG that are
engaged with ICANN, but there is a profound gulf on tactics. For example,
the JNC position on ICANN seems to be 'we are unsure that ICANN is
sufficiently accountable, so we will refuse to engage'. The end result is
that most JNC comments on accountability within ICANN etc are not listened
to, not because they are wrong in principle, but because they are
misinformed, lacking the knowledge that comes from direct experience and
relying on third hand reports. I recall last year, for example,
conversations with you that made it clear that you had no idea at all that
direct participants in ICANN policy processes had to lodge a statement of
interest. 

            In NCSG you won't find us saying many good things about ICANN
accountability either, but the difference is that, having engaged directly
with its accountability mechanisms and discovered first hand their problems,
we are now (given the leverage of the IANA transition process) in a good
position to push to change those accountability mechanisms for the better.
We know what works, we know what doesn't, we know how mechanisms will be
subverted or weakened. Accountability isn't a slogan, it is a battle front,
and one on which we currently have a good chance to make some very solid
gains. 

            Which isn't to say that I feel that being the internal
opposition is the only viable strategy. Rather, strategically we should have
both an internal opposition and an external opposition, and they should work
together. At the moment, JNC seems to spend a large amount of its effort on
attacking civil society colleagues for acting as the internal opposition. 

b. democratic representation--okay, now you have used the "D" word--what
exactly do you mean and how does this fit into the above "models" (and
please no vague hand waving about an equally undefined "participatory
democracy"

            This is actually an area that deserves significant discussion.
Is the model of democracy we want aggregative (in which case certainly
multi-stakeholderism fails, but we have no good model for transnational
aggregative democracy, nor is one likely to emerge IMO - and democracy
should be more than the tyranny of the majority) or deliberative (in which
case multi-stakeholderism can be seen as profoundly democratic, as it forces
deliberation, but multi-stakeholderism models currently do a poor job of
dealing with situations where deliberation fails to achieve consensus)? Is
democracy about representing the views of the majority, or protecting the
voice and rights of minorities? Is democracy about the voice of the people,
or is it about justice for all?

            These are not new debates. They are among the oldest of
political debates, and we will continue to have them. There is no one
defining right answer. Civil society should have a range of views and
priorities. I admit that as I represent a civil rights organisation within
most IG processes, my focus is on protection of rights for all, but that is
my individual focus. 

            My primary policy difference with JNC is simply that JNCs
dialogue about democracy vs multistakeholderism pretty much entirely ignores
the problem of anti-democratic governments. I literally cannot recall a
single comment from JNC advocates that addresses the issue. 

c.  "global Internet governance in which governments ... not a priori have
the lead role"--who in the absence of governments then does have the lead
role

            The whole point of multi-stakeholderism is that no one sector
has a lead role. 

, how is their role determined, who decides who has the lead role in which
circumstance, how (if at all) are those alternatively in the "lead role" to
be held externally accountable, what are their internal processes of
accountability in these alternative modalities, how is
representitivity/inclusivity maintained/ensured (or perhaps it doesn't
matter?) in the absence of some form of anchored democratic processes.

            These are really good questions. I do not think there is a
single simple answer. There ARE areas in which governments should have the
primary public policy role. But there are areas in which they should not.
There do need to be accountability mechanisms, but such mechanisms do need
to evolve to deal with the issues that arise from specific processes. How do
we broaden inclusivity of processes, especially ones (such as very technical
processes) that have a high barrier to entry. 

            And the question of how we deal with
inclusivity/representativity in the absence of anchored democratic processes
in another issue that is important, but that is a big problem without a
simple solution. Because transnational processes are always conducted in the
absence of anchored democratic processes as long as there are major states
that are not democratic. As I said above, my biggest policy disagreement
with the JNC is how often it conflates 'states' and 'democratic states',
such as the rhetoric supporting its push to retain article 35. It is naive
and hypocritical not to up front address the issue that any time a JNC
position supports a primary role for government, it strengthens
authoritarian anti-democratic governments as well as democratically elected
ones - and that is leaving aside the 'neoliberal' corporatist subversion of
the international trade position of most democratically elected governments,
which you'd think would be a JNC concern really. 

I don't mean these questions argumentatively but rather these are some of
the questions that need to be answered before any kind of discussion of
these kinds can go forward.  (Simply "answering" them through the creation
of "facts" in reality a la the NMI only makes the issues more fraught and
difficult to address in reality although perhaps not in theory since the
actors and actions involved tosses the theoretical underpinnings into stark
relief.)

            I have some sympathy, though I think that we practically have to
deal with processes that are happening as well. I would certainly support
dialogue on issues such as how to address risks to democracy in
mutti-stakeholder fora, how to promote democratic mechanisms in
transnational fora that include powerful anti-democratic nations, etc. But I
would argue that your frequent use of terms like democracy and
accountability in cheap sloganeering is detrimental to that dialogue. 

BTW, it would be good if the evidently closed loop of self-reflexive IG
think tanks etc. --the WEF/NMI, the Bildt Commission or whatever it's
called, ICANN's various internal too-ing and fro-ings could use some of
their expense account zillions to actually address some of these rather
fundamental issues in a way that actually recognized the internal
controversies and external oppositions.

            I can assure you that while some recent ICANN think tank
exercises may have been exercises in internal group-think, the IANA and
Accountability processes (for example) very much do recognise the internal
controversies and external oppositions. And many other ICANN processes very
much recognise the internal controversies.

            Regards

                        David

M 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 1:42 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150206/328acd44/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