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

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Sun Nov 3 19:12:53 EST 2019 

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>
To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com
Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" <iza at anr.org>; "Ang Peng Hwa 
(Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>; "CWCS (IGC)" <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
>
>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/20191104/54416029/attachment.htm>

More information about the Governance mailing list