[bestbits] [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification

José Félix Arias Ynche jaryn56 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 26 11:15:14 EST 2015 

Podemos estar un poco lejos de una estructura similar y de composición
de ideas y voces, pero eso no quiere decir que estemos lejos de llegar
éticamente a un acuerdo de las diversas voces de los grupos, tanto
dentro de la CSCG o de NCSG, o de diversos grupos no afiliados e
independientes sobre la Gobernanza de Internet.

Lo que falta es un llamado al dialogo y discusión sobre un fin, en el
cual todos den su opinión y sobre ello llegar a un acuerdo en donde no
haya vencidos ni vencedores.

Podemos comenzar como ejemplo un dialogo de ideas y sugerencias en
nuestra lista, pidiéndoles a todos los miembros que den su parecer o
su punto de vista de los temas que se debe de discutir o enriquecer
para llegar a un acuerdo, porque creo que aun dentro de nuestra lista
governance.lists.igcaucus.org, no todos comparten las misas opiniones
o ideas


Todo esto no quiere decir que de inmediato tendremos un mapa claro de
las voces de los diversos miembros o de las demás agrupaciones
aceptando, pero si estoy seguro de que proporcionará un mapa claro de
las voces reales que existen dentro de las diversas agrupaciones sobre
la Gobernanza de Internet, y con ello dar el nacimiento a lo que
podría ser a nivel mundial, como por ejemplo:

·  Los supuestos básicos en lo que se debe de regir una “Constitución
Única” sobre la Gobernanza de Internet.

·  Sus visiones y metas.



Todo ello es un reto, pero la idea es que aun siendo un reto grande,
tenemos que tener la voluntad de decidirnos a encontrar una forma de
unir criterios, ideas y voces, de que si podemos llegar a formas
innovadoras de unidad de ideas y de trabajar alrededor de ella.






Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo


2015-01-26 10:00 GMT-05:00 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>:
> N.B. Of course there also is APC as a clearly identifiable CS party under
> the parasol of rights, but I would say more specifically women rights (as
> several other CS families can also claim HR as their compass.) Anyway, that
> was just to correct an oversight. For the rest it is up to each grouping to
> come up with their best and accurate self-characterization. And just for the
> sake of being complete, Diplo is an hybrid in my view and I'm not sure how
> they would characterize their CS commitments (and btw, if my information is
> correct they have announced their intention to withdraw from CSCG which
> causes another problem if you rely on the latter to define which groups will
> be included in this proposed opus.) Civicus has never really engaged wiith
> CSCG as far as I can tell.
>
> mC
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> This has been my concern, too, from my very first reply to the initial
>> proposal, and still remains. We are far from having a homomorphism between
>> the CSCG member groupings and the "diverse voices" you are referring to,
>> Wolfgang. It seems to me the most identifiable voice(s) within the CSCG
>> setting -- in terms of what all members stand for -- include JNC (social
>> justice) and maybe BestBits (?), both of whom spun off from IGC where they
>> still have their footprint aside possible other voices. In other words, IGC
>> which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one voice. I suspect there is
>> also notable diversity of voices within NCSG although it is my sense that
>> they have clearer and tested working processes and are more ready to reach a
>> common position on a whole host of issues than IGC does. Furthermore you
>> have
>> on the other hand
>> folks such as JFC and their following, whom I am not sure to what extent
>> they overlap with JNC and to what extent they have a distinct voice.
>>
>> All of this to say, you may go with the above groupings but I am not sure
>> they will provide a clear map of the actual voices that exist within CS in
>> terms of families of thought, basic assumptions, visions, goals, values or
>> principles of commitments, etc. If we can find a practical way to identify
>> those, that would be great but I recognize it might be challenging. I am
>> just putting the idea out there so that we recognize that potential
>> limitation and see whether we can come up with some innovative ways to work
>> around it. (Again, I also understand that you may just have made the
>> deliberate choice to start from the existing _social groupings_
>>  and let them
>> bear the responsibility to put forward their common voice OR their diverse
>> voices on the issues, taking the burden away from the architect of the
>> project (outline of the volume) as well as from the editors and placing it
>> on the groups themselves, which will not make IGC business any easier ;-)
>> Nevertheless, this approach also has its won merits.)
>>
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----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
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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