[governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Sun Jan 25 15:30:12 EST 2015
Hi Wolfgang,
I am glad you raised this again, because I think the idea is great.
I am not sure that a direct correlation with CSCG and with the different
groups within civil society who are CSCG members is the best way to proceed
(eg one JNC article followed by one Best Bits article etc) - because I think
many of our best people sit between and across various groups and I am not
sure that direct characterisation of opinions with groupings is always
accurate or helpful.
But I am entirely behind the idea of a publication which would reflect in a
balanced way all the voices within civil society, and including
organisational stances on issues where these are clear.
But one catch. Although I am happy to be involved, I cannot take on the
central organising role for this. I am wondering if someone else would like
to take this on - I would be happy to assist, even be co-editor - but in
this timeframe my time is limited due to other commitments.
If someone with the time available and organising skills would like to take
on a coordinating role, I would be pleased to participate and help. Contact
me off line if you wish.
It would be great to see this idea materialise.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:15 PM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael
gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
Dear friends,
six weeks ago I made a proposal under the thread "From Confusion to
Clarification" to produce a Civil Society Internet Governance Compendium or
Handbook. What was the idea behind the proposal?
Civil Society is a recognized and needed stakeholder in the global Internet
Governance debate and a needed partner in the evolving multistakeholder
approaches to manage Internet related public policy issues.
2015 will see a number of Internet Governance events where the voice of
civil society has to be raised: It starts with the ITU Council IG Working
Group Meetings in February, continues with UNESCO conferences and meetings
of the UNCSTD, the HRC, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Conference in The
Hague, the IGF in Brazil, the WSIS 10+ conference in New York in December
2015 and others.
Civil Society does not speak with one voice. It is characterized by a broad
diversity. This is not a weakness, this is a strength. It reflects the
reality. And it is not different from the diversity within other stakeholder
groups. In the governmental stakeholder group you have a broad varierty of
positions - from the US via EU, Brazil, Egypt and India to China. In the
private sector stakeholder group there are different approaches among
transnational corporations and small and medium enterprises from developed
and developing countries. And even among the I* organizations there are
differences, as we have seen recently in the positioning towards the
NetMundial initiative. This pluralism and diversity reflects the reality of
the Internet Governance ecosystem. If one want to achieve sustainable
progress a rough consensus has to include the main arguments from the main
groups of all stakeholders. To achieve concrete results openess and
transparency with regard to the various positions is a key pre-condition to
promote mutual understanding.
Insofar it would be good if civil society Internet Governance groups or
individuals could describe openly what they are standing for. To have on
paper the various perspectives different civil society groups have if it
comes to Internet policy related issues would be useful anbd could enhance
civil society input into the forthcoming negotiations, in particular with
regard to WSIS 10+.
Since I did send this proposals to this list I got numerous comments and
critical remarks. Some respondents supported the project and called it a
good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, unrealistic and
counterproductive idea. Many partners made concrete proposals how such a
project could be further enhanced. Taking into account all the feed back I
got since last month I would specify my proposal in the following way:
I. Ian Peter, in his capacity as acting chair of the CSCG, should function
as the main editor. Each member of the CSCG should nominate a co-editor. The
role of the editor and the co-editors would be technical. They should not
intervene into the content of the individual contributions. The six
co-editors of the six member groups of the CWSG should invite four
contributors from their group, one for each chapter. It is up to the groups
whether the individual author expresses his own individual position or
represents the position of the whole group. Each contribution should be 4 -
8 pages. Each author would be free to cover either the whole subject or to
select a special sub-item.
II. The book should have four chapters:
1. Human Rights and Internet(Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy,
Content, Culture etc.)
2. Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime,
Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)
3. Social, Economic and Cultural Development (Digital Divide, Market
Domination, Competition, Infrastructure Development, Cultural and Linguistic
Diversity etc.)
4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols, Accountability etc.)
III. Timetable
It would be good to have a first draft ready until early May (for the
Meeting of the UNCSTD). The final e-Version of the whole book should be
ready until early September for use by the WSIS 10+ negotiations groups. A
formal presentation should be organized during the 10th IGF in Brazil.
Efforts should be undertake to produce also a paper version for distribution
at the 10th IGF in November 2014.
Best regards
Wolfgang
PS:
I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in CircleID
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/
w
Hi everybody
After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying
collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly)
disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with
different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who
want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well
as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the
othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has
similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the
governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil,
India, Japan, Australia etc.
This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the
position. So it is about transparency and clarity.
Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people writing
long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use
this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue
papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real
points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different
arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.
I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet
Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the
CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows
what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main
chapters:
1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure
development etc.)
4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could
nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to
argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need
for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical,
moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues.
Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and
would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us.
We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.)
until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around
250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event
in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as
a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging
IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+
process.
The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups)
would be the editor.
Any comment?
Wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list