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

Sat Nov 2 11:04:12 EDT 2019

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> 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>:
>
>> 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> on behalf of "Mueller,
>> Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM
>> *To: *governance <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 <
>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of *
>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM
>> *To:* governance <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> 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
>> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <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
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191102/893d255b/attachment.htm>