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

Sun Nov 3 18:44:23 EST 2019

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

Andrés

El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (<
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>:
> > 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>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **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>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>

-- 
*Andrés Piazza*
@andrespiazza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191103/1efc836b/attachment.htm>