This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

[I-coordination] Fwd: (part 1) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Thu Dec 12 17:28:11 CET 2013


part 1 of the email mentioned, mainly about problems of/concerns about representation.

Thanks,

Adam


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Date: December 13, 2013 12:06:52 AM GMT+09:00
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (part 1) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps
> Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> 
> (This now too many words... kind of leads on from another thread: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US)
> 
> Hi George,
> 
> (about representation and substantive proposals.) 
> 
> I suspect the problems of representation are a reason for the lack of substantive comment.  Not just from CS, from any group.  There's not much happening.
> 
> We began with the quite surprising and in my opinion magnificent announcement from the ICANN CEO there would be a Summit on Internet governance.  With indications that it would address --certainly was inspired by-- surveillance and threat those actions brought to the Internet, and the need to enshrine human rights online (President Rousseff's speech at the UN), and this following the Montevideo Statement.  All very bold, great stuff. 
> 
> Then Bali, at the IGF opening and closing sessions Brazilian govt representatives made open invitations to organize and participate in the Summit. They were pretty definite: open to all, we shouldn't loose this as a foundation of the meeting.  
> 
> Discussions in many of the IGF main sessions were really quite rich and kept referring back to Brazil and Montevideo, but I heard that at side meetings the message wasn't entirely consistent, began to sound like a desire for control was seeping in (perhaps that's what has to happen when moving towards practical matters of organizing an international event?) 
> 
> 1net's poor start didn't help, suddenly the agenda seemed to narrow, some were invited to initial private/semi-private lists -- a bit of a reminder to some of us of the first year or so of the IGF where it seemed a rather timid Internet tech groups and business looked to make sure nothing too radical happened (I don't blame the I* for this, they have working systems to maintain, often with hundreds of member organizations to consider).  And we still lack clarity from Brazil.  It is not at all clear what the relationship between 1net (whoever its leaders are) and Brazil is.  How to contribute is a bit of a mess, what committee have formed etc, so not surprising people are holding off on substance.
> 
> Just 8 weeks ago (really was just 8 weeks when Fadi met with President Rousseff) it looked like there would be a broad, open discussion of Internet governance challenges, a much needed response to both some of the issues highlighted by WCIT (and largely ignored since Dubai), and our own concerns about facing 18 to 24 months of multilateral processes that perhaps posed a threat to the current model and our wishes for IG.  Now the Brazil meeting's beginning to look like just 2 days of talk. Need to take care after raising expectations, the excitement in Bali, I'm concerned we're actually taking a step back.
> 
> On top of this there's the ICANN panels: internal, but also addressing the wider "ecosystem", with the High Level Panel somewhat repurposed to focus on input to Brazil, and civil society concerned that it is not represented, at least those of us who have been active in WSIS/IGF and ICANN do not see representation (we began in WSIS over 10 years ago demanding to be let in the room, steps back aren't comfortable ones to take). 
> 
> This it too long... next email for some proposals.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:
> 
>> I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue.
>> 
>> I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals.
>> 
>> Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community.  If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important.
>> 
>> Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified?  I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray.
>> 
>> Thanks for this analysis, Mike!
>> 
>> George
>> 
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 
>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> 
>>> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing… It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance… Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context.
>>> 
>>> I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called)…
>>> 
>>> So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited.
>>> 
>>> There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world…
>>> 
>>> These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved.
>>> 
>>> Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available.
>>> 
>>> The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with.
>>> 
>>> I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet.  I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel
>>> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps
>>> 
>>> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. 
>>> 
>>> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing.
>>> 
>>> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net  (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here.
>>> 
>>> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net?
>>> 
>>> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. 
>>> 
>>> --MM
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




More information about the I-coordination mailing list