[governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level?

[Mueller, Milton L]

Ian,
Yes, the term was “not invented to apply at a national level” but I wouldn’t go so far as to say “things were presumed to be going well” at the national level. In many nations, there are no democratic institutions at all. In those cases, the ideology of “multistakeholder governance” can improve things at the national level, by fostering wider participation and better dialogue among stakeholders.

But during WSIS, global internet governance posed new problems that needed to transcend established national governments.


Dr. Milton L Mueller
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Public Policy
[IGP_logo_gold block]


From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2019 7:13 PM
To: governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
Subject: Re[2]: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level?

Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs.

I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global dimension where there was a presumed problem.

Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society involvement, that  people could use to suggest to their governments effective ways of doing things.

Ian

------ Original Message ------
From: "Andrés Piazza" <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>
Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com<mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>; "Izumi Aizu" <iza at anr.org<mailto:iza at anr.org>>; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>>; "CWCS (IGC)" <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level?

Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR<http://BFA.AR>

Andrés

El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (<governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>) escribió:
Hi all,

This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process
but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and
send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even
possible for most civil society groups to come together and work on an
input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion.

Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together
last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion
at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how
we did this: https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/

But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken
more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby
legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit
more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure their
inputs are being taken seriously.

Hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Arsene

2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy
<governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>:
> Ian,
>
> Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather slow to
> embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of a good
> start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and far more
> effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general National
> and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems
> including the seemingly impossible governance problems left unresolved over
> centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress upon
> Governments on the value of the process, and what could the Community do to
> prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the
> Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt?
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org<mailto:iza at anr.org>> wrote:
>
>> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired
>> PrepCom
>> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South
>>  Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan.
>>
>> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, say
>> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there don’t want
>> to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake they
>> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It’s
>> been
>> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8.  Aging problem
>> indeed.
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>>
>> 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>>:
>>
>>> Hi all.
>>>
>>> Chipping in….
>>>
>>> “in their respective roles”
>>>
>>> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in
>>> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. From one
>>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised
>>> as
>>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted.
>>>
>>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could
>>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues
>>>
>>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to
>>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate
>>> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in
>>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but
>>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past
>>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses.
>>>
>>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have
>>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private
>>> sector in internet related policy development,
>>>
>>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate
>>> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall
>>> Shope-Mafole <https://www.wgig.org/docs/Bio-Mafole.html>, then
>>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and
>>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which
>>> someone
>>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said
>>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep
>>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government
>>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger
>>> sitting
>>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you
>>> work
>>> for the government?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model
>>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters
>>> demanding
>>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter
>>> of
>>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed
>>> https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy
>>> calling
>>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases,  Queen of
>>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did
>>> the
>>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in
>>> *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case
>>> <https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case>*.
>>> The court threw out the two cases
>>> https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case
>>> .
>>>
>>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and
>>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had
>>> a
>>> satisfying lunch meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ang Peng Hwa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *<governance-request at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net>> on behalf of "Mueller,
>>> Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
>>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM
>>> *To: *governance <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
>>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy
>>> development at a national level?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian, David, Tamir:
>>>
>>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as
>>> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet
>>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively,
>>> they
>>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial
>>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for
>>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private
>>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role
>>> of
>>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had
>>> something
>>> to do with local communities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted
>>> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true
>>> of
>>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance
>>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in
>>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder
>>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document
>>> written
>>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had
>>> different
>>> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders
>>> could
>>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never
>>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role
>>> of
>>> governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS
>>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in
>>> things
>>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private
>>> sector
>>> as influential as governments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is
>>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does
>>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial
>>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on
>>> any
>>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully
>>> integrated
>>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de
>>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system
>>> such
>>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten
>>> the global compatibility of the internet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in
>>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for
>>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder
>>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or
>>> “equal
>>> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses the
>>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking
>>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national
>>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less
>>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of
>>> traditional national governance.  And in democratic societies, there are
>>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power
>>> sharing
>>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the
>>> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is
>>> because there is no global sovereign.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized
>>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net> <
>>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net>> *On Behalf Of *
>>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu<mailto:david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM
>>> *To:* governance <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy
>>> development at a national level?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How about "in their respective roles"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have
>>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private
>>> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps
>>> of
>>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago
>>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed
>>> that.
>>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net<mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net<mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net<mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>
>> --
>>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>> Japan
>> www.anr.org<http://www.anr.org>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net<mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>


--
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net<mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>


--
Andrés Piazza
@andrespiazza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191105/b29c1bc0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 22295 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191105/b29c1bc0/attachment.png>