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

[Mueller, Milton L]

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding! Yes, in CSCG I would guess that APC is the only active one now.

From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:51 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
Subject: Re[2]: [governance] The world has changed but we haven't.

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<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
To: "ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>; "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto: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 ☹, 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/20181221/0e3df21b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2894 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20181221/0e3df21b/attachment.jpg>