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

Mon Nov 25 18:46:48 EST 2019

(Great) apologies for the delay in coming back. Up here in our neck of the woods, fundamental matters of democratic governance have hogged the bandwidth.

But then, timelines, in our quest, are long, very long. Far beyond a few weeks. As you begin to suggest, ours is a story that stretches back – actually, many millennia.

So, let's go there.

Early history, governance then will surely be a story of tribal groups. The elemental building block of human social networks. With all that will be involved to acknowledge a head person, customs for resolving differences, and ways for 'moving forward.'

With enough time, and growing population – and with it (internecine) power struggles you at least hint at – the hunt was effectively on for a better way forward. Churchill in my view put it best, words to the effect:  "Democracy is a terrible form of government, just better than all those others we've tried."

By no means does this in any way diminish the kinds of processes you point at. They are, surely, fundamental to human social functioning. But. At our scale, working effectively only when overlaid with and feeding into democracy. Elected representation, and all that entails.

Do we live in an imperfect world? Of course we don't even have to ask that question. Challenges are simply rife, with democracy even threatened, see mine initially … Embroiled, instead of strengthening democracy or righting where it is largely only pretense, or advancing it where now there is no prospect.

What we cannot afford to do, in this (and in my) view, is fail to be clear that democratic representation is the objective. Hence, along with those musty old practices from ancient times, now burnished with the notion 'multi-stakeholder' – proceed 'in respective roles' toward that imperfect democracy. Bulwark against autocracy. With, alongside, all that multi-stakeholder brings, also – crucially.

Yours helps, for me anyway, to bring out some of the essence.

If I had used 'contention' a bit more adroitly, we could distinguish between the contention that can lead finally to warfare, on the one hand. And on the other hand, the contention among ideas, which, done right, can enable quality social group functioning.

Democratic deficits? That references, in the end, hundreds of millions, finally billions. Not of course what are effectively elites, who at the same time still have a role, a crucial role as you describe.

All the best,

David

> On Nov 8, 2019, at 9:45 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan at unam.mx> wrote:
> 
> David,
> 
> to quote from the end of your note: "cooperative effort among the parts. Rather than contention, and struggle for power among the parts, as standard operating procedure."
> 
> a. cooperative effort among the parts is what multistakeholder processes are about. And no, you can't do away with the struggle for power, so that's where the institutional design comes in, including components like structures, weighting votes, mechanisms for consensus, stakeholder identification and grouping, transparency about interests, and so on.
> 
> b. the best of these efforts do openly acknowledge their democratic deficits, if they have them, and work to reduce them. Depending on issue and circumstances this may mean outreach to include more parties, depending on third parties as backstops or overseers, and so on. 
> 
> c. in most cases in which multistakeholder mechanisms have arisen, the name "multistakeholder" hadn't even been invented when they started. They are ages old. Look at Ostrom for more. 
> 
> d. in most cases, waiting for government is not an option. Problemes require solutions.
> 
> e. in many cases, the fine-grained nature of the issue requires faster and, ahem, more fine-grained mechanisms and action.
> 
> f. about 2/3 of humankind is not in agreement with their government, especially in countries where elections do not take place or are totally distorted or captured. Should we tell all those people to wait for the fall of their "Iron Curtains", instead of actually doing something to bring them down, and, meanwhile, work across them?
> 
> e. for issues related to advanced science (including social science) and technology, governments in developing countries don't have the knowledge, staff, money and other resources, understanding, and political will to even start studying them (and/or therefore rely on ITU and similar pabulum, spoon-fed to them and in exchange for votes.) We positively crossed many barriers thanks to multistakeholder mecahnisms. Not only that: we were able to shape them. Had we waited for our governments, the whole system would have been set up purely by powerful US-based corporations. I tend to intuit that this would not have been your preferred result.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
>  
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM 
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>  
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD 
> 
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <http://pisanty.blogspot.com/>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty <http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty>
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 <http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <http://twitter.com/apisanty>
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
> 
> Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu [david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu]
> Enviado el: viernes, 08 de noviembre de 2019 16:43
> Hasta: governance
> Asunto: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level?
> 
> The salient word here, it seems, is "legitimate."
> 
> Such as, where is the legitimacy for 'civil society,' for instance for ourselves here in this discussion? In a world where 7,000,000,000+ are civil society, those who speak up in its name are an almost infinitesimally small percentage. From where does their legitimacy obtain?
> 
> Of course, the whole point of a(n actually) functioning democracy is the _legitimate_ representation, in the end, of very large numbers of civil society / of citizens.
> 
> That said, it is with (great) appreciation, to read the two below.
> 
> Indeed, the successful functioning of a society, certainly one governing itself democratically, is the 'division of labor' amongst all involved. Technical, scientific, academic, business, government ... in the rhyme, the butcher, the baker and candlestick maker ...
> 
> Where lawful requirements are the responsibility of elected officials. And where (now saying for the third time) intimate engagement in that governing process (in respective roles) by the whole society is an absolute requirement for democracy actually to work. As artfully described in some of the below.
> 
> (Our own (intellectual) history here? The sage Santayana reminded us that "those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.")
> 
> Does it all work seamlessly? That is hardly even a serious question ...
> 
> But, we can see – beyond outcroppings of power struggles – the good outcome lies in cooperative effort among the parts. Rather than contention, and struggle for power among the parts, as standard operating procedure.
> 
> David
> 
> 
>> On Nov 4, 2019, at 5:24 PM, Tamir <tisrael at cippic.ca <mailto:tisrael at cippic.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I would just second what a number of folks have said, which is that while I respect and appreciate the historical origins, I think there are national contexts in which multi-stakeholder Internet policy making can be both appropriate and legitimate. 
>> 
>> Certainly the cross-territorial nature of the Internet is one of the earliest and most enduring challenges to coordinated policy-making in this space, and multi-stakeholder policy making is an important component in trying to address that, but there are other recurring challenges such as the need for flexible policies that don't necessarily align 100% with current law or should not be applied with the rigour of law, or where the technical nature of the problem requires more nuanced engagement than you can get in some traditional government-led settings. 
>> 
>> I would say the same for the 'in their respective roles' vs 'on equal footing' debate.... There's certainly going to be situations where you need a government(s) led process, particularly where implementation relies on entities voluntarily adopting measures that are counter to their own interests (which is something ICANN has at least made an attempt to get around). But in other contexts, having a venue where government actors can provide the government perspective but not have the last say can also lead to effective and legitimate outcomes, including at the national level. 
>> 
>> I think it's an enduring irony that in these contexts it's still civil society, rather than governments, who often ends up representing individual interests most aggressively, but that does still seem to be the prevailing tendency.... 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Tamir
>> 
>> On 2019-11-03 8:13 p.m., Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> you may find useful my chapter on multistakeholder governance in https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf <https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf>https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf <https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf> 
>>> p. 189 ff. Multistakeholder governance is used in many fields, like sports, finance, the environment, etc. The involvement, roles, responsiblities and "teeth" of these mechanisms vary widely across issues, places, time, and stakeholder groups. To quote from the conclusions, 
>>> 
>>> "It is a laboratory for many other fields of endeavour. The complexity of the organizations varies enormously according to, among other factors, the “bindingness” of the agreements. Organizations such as ICANN, which intermediate numerous complex relationships among players who have a whole industry at stake, and whose resolutions may be binding for the parties in the form of policies and signed contracts, require complex rule-making procedures, mechanisms for review and potentially reversal and redress of decisions, as well as dealing with their own processes. More open, less binding processes, like the Internet Governance Forum, or smaller, focused organizations like APWG may operate with simpler rule books. 
>>> 
>>> The need for oversight of process and decisions may be satisfied internally and may or may not appear sufficient to third parties. The more organizations learn to manage the risk of undue oversight the less energy they will have to devote to self-defence and the more they will have available for their core function."
>>> 
>>> A recent, specific case is national cybersecurity strategies. Shears and Kasper have a nice paper out, https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development <https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development/>https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development <https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development> which applies to the national level. 
>>> 
>>> It is an uphill struggle no doubt. In many Internet-related issues the technical community, civil society, and business find themselves more or less on the same side at least in the first-order approximation (the side of innovation, openness, universality, and other Internet principles) vis-a-vis government, so strategy and tactics require both recognizing the affinities and differentiating in order not to do business's dirty work. Surprisingly, the advocacy for a strict separation of "in their respective roles" ends up siding with governments and intergovernmental institutions, even for organizations that have sought independence or stood in opposition to them for decades. 
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> 
>>> Alejandro Pisanty
>>> 
>>>  
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>>>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>>> Facultad de Química UNAM 
>>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <http://pisanty.blogspot.com/>
>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty <http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty>
>>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 <http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614>
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <http://twitter.com/apisanty>
>>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>
>>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
>>> 
>>> Desde: 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>] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>]
>>> Enviado el: domingo, 03 de noviembre de 2019 18:12
>>> Hasta: governance
>>> Asunto: 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/ <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 <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 <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>
>>>> >>> <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <https://riseup.net/lists>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>>*
>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>>>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org <http://www.rudiinternational.org/>>*,
>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/ <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 <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 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm>> Member. UN IGF MAG
>>>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm <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 <https://riseup.net/lists>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Andrés Piazza
>>>> @andrespiazza
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Tamir Israel
>> Staff Lawyer
>> 
>> Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
>> University of Ottawa | Faculty of Law | CML Section
>> 57 Louis Pasteur Street
>> Ottawa | ON | K1N 6N5
>> ☎: +1 613-562-5800 x 2914
>> Fax: +1 613-562-5417
>> PGP Key: 0x7F01E2C7 <https://cippic.ca/documents/keys/tisrael@cippic.ca-pub.txt>
>> PGP Fingerprint: 871C 31EC B6CC 3029 A1A1 14C4 D119 76EC 7F01 E2C7
>> 
>> ♺ Do you really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire d’imprimer ce courriel?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191125/13414d92/attachment.htm>