[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] What chapters are saying (Was Re: Moderation of list)

[Richard Hill]

There have been several references to multistakeholder processes in this
thread.

Multistakeholder processes are actually not that recent, see the Annex of
this paper:

  http://www.apig.ch/CWG-Internet%202017-2ter.pdf 

They tend to work well when there is a win-win situation, not so well when
there is a win-lose (distributive bargaining) situation. So one would expect
that they would not work well when the issue is corporate profits versus
some other goal, such as equitable distribution of value-added or
environmental protection or data privacy or anti-trust enforcement. 

The study referenced below argues that multistakeholder process have proven,
on the whole, not to be fit for purpose:

 https://www.msi-integrity.org/not-fit-for-purpose/ 

I view that study as an empirical validation of the theoretical criticism by
Gleckman that Alejandro referred to. Gleckman's paper is available here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328097313_Multistakeholder_Governan
ce_and_Democracy_A_Global_Challenge 

And here is what appears to me to be a well thought-out, nuanced view of
multistakeholder processes in the context of Internet governance:

 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2354377 

There is also some specific criticism of certain specific Internet
governance multistakeholder processes, see:

 https://www.keypointsabout.org/home 

 
http://www.boundary2.org/2021/03/multistakeholder-internet-governance-still-
doesnt-live-up-to-its-pr-review-of-palladino-and-santaniello-legitimacy-powe
r-and-inequalities-in-the-multistakeholder-internet-governance/ 

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan via InternetPolicy
> Sent: Sunday, 11 July 2021 03:46
> To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: [Internet Policy] What chapters are saying (Was Re: [Chapter-
> delegates] Moderation of list)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:22:21PM -0400, Veni Markovski via
> InternetPolicy wrote:
> >
> >I might have written this wrong, I guess;-( I was asking if ISOC is
> >following the statements, made by member states (at different
> >international, regional and national gatherings), who say that they
> >believe the current multistakeholder model (MSM) of Internet governance
> >is not working and should be replaced with a multilateral one.
> 
> Yes, of course we have.  That's _why_ the Internet Way of Networking
> project has been running.
> 
> > The way
> >to make sure the member states are well informed, is if ISOC chapters
> >reach out to their national telecom administration and brief them with
> >details about the MSM.
> 
> I don't think the MSM _itself_ ought to be the focus, to be honest.  I
> think (and this part of why we set our objectives for 2025 around
> building, promoting, and defending the Internet) that people have
> started to treat the MSM of governance as some sort of political
> settlement related to how the Internet is governed, and have come to
> imagine that something like a multilateral approach could work.
> 
> This stems from a deep error in understanding what the Internet is.  To
> get people to believe again in the multistakeholder approach requires
> that they understand that for the Internet to function _at all_ you need
> all the voluntary interoperation to work.  Because of the technical
> facts of the architecture of the Internet, there are far too many
> independent actors to do this simply by government fiat (which is really
> what treaties are).  In other words, MSM is not merely a way to govern
> the Internet, but literally _the_ way to do it.  It's a non-optional
> feature.
> 
> That's what the critical properties from the Internet Way of Networking
> are supposed to show.
> 
> (Of course, another part of that is to have multistakeholder mechanisms
> that continue to work well.  I think it is important to admit that some
> of the institutions that are supposed to be carrying this weight are not
> always doing so terribly well, and that may tend to cause governments to
> want to take control.  But this isn't something the Internet Society can
> actually do anything about, since we are not one of those institutions.)
> 
> >True (that's a change, I have to add, compared to some aspects of the
> >chapter policies before you), but ISOC could not only listen, but also
> >hear what the chapters are saying.
> 
> I hope that this response shows that I think I understand what you are
> arguing, and that we agree with your concern but think the source of the
> problem is still deeper.  But I want to be clear that I am of the view
> that this is the Internet _Society_, not the Internet Staff In Charge,
> and so we continue to work to keep our shared mission in sight.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> President & CEO, Internet Society
> sullivan at isoc.org
> +1 416 731 1261
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
> -
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/