[governance] The world has changed but we haven't.

[ian.peter at ianpeter.com]

Thanks Milton,

Just to clarify:

The context in which I was talking about APC was specifically as regards 
the groups who are members of CSCG. Of these 5 groups, only APC (and as 
Dave Cake pointed out NCSG of ICANN) appear to be particularly active at 
this point of time. I don't for one minute suggest they are the only 
active civil society groups in this space - there are of course many!

I take your point as regards the term internet governance. If it 
encourages civil society groups to work together, that's fine, despite 
its peculiarities.

Ian

------ Original Message ------
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
To: "ian.peter at ianpeter.com" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>; "governance" 
<governance at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: 21/12/2018 8:50:50 AM
Subject: RE: [governance] The world has changed but we haven't.

>Hi, Ian,
>
>Really appreciate your perspective, as you have the same long-term 
>perspective dating to WSIS as I do.
>
>But I do not agree that the term Internet Governance (IG) is no longer 
>relevant. In fact, I think it is the glue that holds all those issues 
>you mention together – just as it was 16-17 years ago. The concept of a 
>mobilized global civil society has no meaning if we consider all of 
>these issues distinct arenas where different organizations take 
>independent action. We need to maintain a globalized, cross-sectional 
>presence. IG as a concept and label does that. Of course various 
>parties in CS will specialize in different areas, but the whole point 
>of having IGC is to bring them all together.
>
>
>
>Also, it’s not true that APC is the only active organization (I think 
>this says more about your own distance from IG than it does about CS). 
>We at IGP are more active than ever but we tend to focus on core areas 
>of IG, such as ICANN and cybersecurity, that other CS organization’s 
>don’t pay much attention to. I see lots of Article 19 over the past 3 
>years. Until Jeremy Malcolm departed L, EFF was more active in IG 
>spaces than ever. AccessNow is also playing a leading role with 
>RightsCon. Privacy organizations are extremely active, and NCSG (which 
>combines many CS organizations) has gotten deeply involved in that due 
>to the GDPR-ICANN nexus.
>
>
>
>What’s lacking is a meeting place where those organizations can all 
>trade ideas and coordinate strategy when possible. That’s why I support 
>(as you do too, apparently) these efforts to revive IGC.
>
>
>
>
>
>Dr. Milton Mueller
>
>Professor, School of Public Policy
>
>Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>IGP_logo_gold block_email sig
><http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>So let me begin by saying the term internet governance is becoming 
>about as relevant as television governance. There is nothing generic 
>left to do, but there are plenty of emerging issues around the internet 
>where civil society needs to present a strong voice.
>
>Apart from digital inclusion, big issues out there include privacy, 
>human rights, media domination, cybersecurity, cyberwarfare, digital 
>distortion etc: and they come up in separate discussions concerning 
>internet of things, artificial intelligence etc as well as in political 
>discussions on terrorism, national security and related subjects. 
>Mostly these days these issues are addressed in separate fora by 
>different groups: often governmental, but sometimes also involving the 
>big dominant players (Google Facebook etc.) In most cases civil society 
>presence is either absent or weak, and its not sensible to think that 
>the same people can represent our interests in this wide range of 
>activities.
>
>So I think a new revived IGC would see its primary role as ensuring 
>relevant groups and individual experts get involved in emerging fora 
>looking at specific issues. Let eg Privacy International or Human 
>Rights Watch be our representative when these issues come up: involve 
>individual experts like Tim Wu and Bruce Schneier on issues such as 
>media concentration and security:
>
>Then I think we are getting towards a meaningful role and involvement 
>where civil society involvement will be respected, and IGC could play a 
>meaningful ongoing role that extends well beyond getting together 
>annually at an IGF (if it continues).
>
>Then there is what to do with CSCG. If, as I suggest, BB, JNC and IGC 
>end up as one group again, What is the future of CSCG? Only APC remains 
>as an active organisation at this stage. I think here thought needs to 
>be given to outreach as well – if for instance there was an agreement 
>that privacy and human rights were our two biggest issues, why not 
>invite prominent civil society organisations in those areas to join in?
>
>Anyway, something needs to be done in all these areas. People whose 
>terms of office have ended have not been replaced because of the 
>inertia. I think and hope someone can jump up and take a lead to get 
>civil society working well in these areas. I see lots of excellent new 
>voices who want to do this, and I encourage action!
>
>
>
>Ian Peter (ex co-ordinator of IGC and also Chair of CSCG for a while 
>way back then....)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20181221/ae7700c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2894 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20181221/ae7700c0/attachment.jpg>