theglobaljournal.net: Latest articles of

A New System of Governance For Internet: The Need For a WIF & a WIO

2014-04-22T17:51:03Z

As President Obama is stepping back from the White House previous plan to abandon U.S. asymmetric role over Internet in 2015, -the administration now says the change won't happen for years, if ever - the major issue to be discussed in Sao Paulo, beyond the Principles still to be agreed upon, is about leadership and control. Pairing a World Internet Forum (WIF) with a World Internet Organization (WIO) could be the solution to preserve roles, respect principles, balance powers, and maintain a check-and-balance approach over IG. This idea is part of the submissions made at NetMundial. It is worth to explore and see why this innovative and democratic solution is a credible alternative to the current deadlock. Among the critical challenges, how will a MS model answer to the question of leadership? Who's going to be in charge, in a MS model? Everyone? Who's going to nominate that leadership/everyone? Who's going to control it, and eventually veto it or simply refrain it? Stakeholders? On an equal footing? Here is what the Swiss based think-tank Global Geneva submitted to the NetMundial participants a few weeks ago. In essence it is an hybrid solution recognizing the reality of what Internet is about: a global commons, a market, a jungle. A WIF-WIO pair could be what is missing in today's Internet, but in tomorrow's Internet where we will enjoy more than a single US root-zone.

The full Global_Geneva submission is here, The Next Best Stage For The Future of Internet Governance is Democracy

Extract from Submission 187 to NetMundial

"We are of the opinion that there are three levels of understanding to further articulate the next system of governance related to the Internet, and its many issues and challenges:

- A: intergovernmental level, (binding agreements, national and international public regulation, international law)

- B: global citizens level, (Internet principles, consensus, best practices, empowerment, fair competition, innovation, capacity building)

- C: arbitrage and justice level (unlocking deadlocks, dispute settlement and court decision).

_2.1 : Intergovernmental level

Establishment of a World Internet Organization (WIO) able to legitimize common public policies, regulations and standards related to interconnectivity issues. Some of them could be of ‘soft power’ essence – commonly accepted but recognized by treaties -, some of ‘hard power’ – new regulations or new policies. WIO would have full legitimacy, with the largest constituency among States, their signatures duly apposed to each other. WIO would be part, and contributive to, the international law and policy making framework. Each opportunity to vote by WIO constituency (governments) could be vetoed once, and only once, by the WIF (see below). In the latter case, a new round of discussions and negotiations should take place.

The WIO executive board would have a mandate to bring initiative and suggest reforms for approval and implementation by its constituencies, and would have to forward, document and submit any suggestion approved by the WIF (see below) on both the Internet public policy level, WIO bylaws or Internet governance level. To enter the Internet governance law framework, all of these suggestions would be approved by the WIO constituency, with a 75% majority, if not vetoed by the WIF (see below), or after a second round of negotiations within WIO, if primarily vetoed. WIO would not enter daily operations of the Internet governance. Still it would be the referring authority to IANA, due to its role with regard to DNS/root zone management, encryption and IPs. It cannot be that an entity responsible for such critical functions could be regulated, or place under an authority supposed to be regulated or having just a technical perspective; putting IANA under the control of TLD registries and root servers operators sounds even more dangerous. IANA functions would be handled in a independent fashion.

Thinking of innovation, would it be more than one root zone, the WIF, and not WIO, would create a board to oversight their setting, ruling, and inter-connectivity in full transparency and independence. Once set, this board would be handled and managed with the same precaution as for IANA, under WIO authority but not under its direct handling. The check and balance would still be into the WIF’s hands.

WIO would be the right entity to handle tax avoidance issues.

_2.2: Global citizens level

Establishment of a World Internet Forum (WIF) able to defend values, (see Internet Charter or Internet Principles), public concerns and support a just, capable and thriving interconnected space. The WIF would be the venue for a permanent dialogue between global citizens and all players in the field starting with accredited civil society representatives. The WIF would suggest and promote ideas, programs, policies (to WIO and governments), working in close relation with the other UN entities from Human Rights to Climate Change, Environment, Development, Trade, Intellectual Property to fund and support approved initiatives by the WIF. The WIF would be the ‘natural’ entity able to deliver empowerment and capacity building to any stakeholder, in particular to public authorities and public servants expressing such a need. The WIF would also be able to update the Charter if needed.

ICANN would be able to pursue its role for collective service fees, edit new TLDs, under the supervision of the WIF. I would not handle global public policy matters.

Regulatory proposal to WIO or initiative driven by grouping international entities (public private partnership, public or private) should be endorsed by a 75% majority of the forum constituencies. No unanimity would be required. No veto would be allowed to one single governments – no Security council here! The dialogue within the forum would be of multistakeholder essence, but profit-oriented participants would be excluded from voting with respect to regulatory proposal to WIO and changes to the Internet Charter – no doubt, the for profit participants would keep their capacity to express their view, thanks to their powerful means.

The exact setting of the WIF constituency would be discussed thoroughly during the preparatory period (see roadmap).

The WIF would be part of the UN system, but its constituencies would not be governments (see WIO), but global citizens and civil society recognized players of the field. All continents should be equally represented.

When values would be at stake, the WIF would address an official request to the entity, government or stakeholder responsible for not respecting the Internet Charter. This could lead to a resolution by the UN, and possible sanctions.

The location of IANA at WIO, and ICANN at the WIF, have probably to do with the fact that ICANN should be assimilated to a domain development and service entity when it comes to domain name. IANA would be the technical, safety and security entity. IANA should have a special link/status/contract with WIO in order to avoid un-wanted interferences from governments. A 75% majority at WIO would be requested to act/modify/contest a IANA decision, making it difficult for governments to go beyond reasonable and consensual demands. Again the WIF could veto a potential decision by WIO, once.

Among the WIF constituencies, there should be room for an online/remote participation of global users and global citizens. A citizen initiative should be considered, if able to embrace 5 continents, and criteria to be define during the preparatory process (see roadmap) in order to suggest program or regulation at the WIF level, then possibly at WIO level. The preparatory work (see roadmap) should take this into account, so that for the very first time citizens would have a chance to voice directly their concern. The digital wonder of today allows the lawmakers to think of this democratic and inclusive process to be part of the new Internet Governance eco-system. Such an initiative could not be vetoed and the WIF would have to finalize a proposal/initiative.

_2.3 Arbitrage and justice level to address deadlocks and disputes.

Establishment of a double system of arbitrage/settlement and justice/constraint, taking into account the positive lessons from WTO and WIPO. The arbitrage operandi would be placed under WIF scrutiny, in a transparent, accountable and responsible fashion. If no arbitrage/settlement could be concluded at the WIF by a specific board, the case would be brought to the appreciation of the court of justice, seated at WIO.

The WIF board of settlement could be called in on issues/conflict related to actions by stakeholders.

Action against the WIF could be taken to WIO.

As the UN system offers many different models of governance – see ILO, WTO, ISO, WIPO, UNDP, UNEP… - it offers a lot of opportunity to adapt any governance to the specifics of any major field of concerns. The UN system is flexible enough to envision a new system of governance, taking the lessons of other systems of governance, and considering the specifics of the Internet. The UN system can bring legitimacy to new entities or mandates, having to combine both international binding agreements and treaties with efficiency and a required speed to cop with the extension of the Internet space, impact and outcomes.

3_An innovation in international governance of the Internet could impact many other field of interests.

Since 1945, after a year of preparation and 4 months of intensive discussions in San Francisco, the UN Charter was signed by 50 future member states on June 26, the UN being installed on October 24, the same year. A fascinating new governance product of the largest war ever, the second world war, a globalized one. As an innovative political space, the UN even though it has been often criticized has face many new challenges and ‘invented’ many innovative entities and programs, related to both immediate and long term issues. One major innovation within the Internet new system of governance would be the fact that WIO and WIF would both have strong capacities to act, but would also be linked through a check and balance relation. As the WIF would be the “guardian” of a charter/framework of the Internet principles, it would be legitimate to censor an agreement at WIO level, which would not be in agreement with the Internet charter. A WIF veto would oblige any such agreement at WIO level to go through one additional round of negotiations. One possible option would be having the WIF as a member of WIO, the only one with no voting rights, but a veto rights on first round. A second negotiation would have to be conducted, in a fair understanding that the same proposal could not be run again without some serious amendments. An opposition between the WIF and WIO would lead to a major crisis which makes this new system of governance interesting if citizens and leaders wish to keep it aloft.

Any dispute against WIO should be taken to the UN general secretariat.

4_Funding of the new system of governance for the Internet

4_1: WIO would be funded by its constituencies.

4_2: The WIF would be funded for its most part by service charges for Internet unique identifiers (domain naming – extension) collected globally by ICANN, and in addition, specifically by ISOC/PIR for .net, .org, .com, .ngo.... That supposed that the ISOC/PIR capacities would be transferred to the WIF. ISOC being a community based organization would, like any other civil society organization, have to fund itself within its membership, or any other appropriate system. The PIR expertise and staff could be incorporated as a WIF department, but at reasonable cost. Such a funding for the WIF would be more or less similar to the way WIPO is getting the majority of its funding.

4_3: The work over Internet Charter would be secure by the UN.

It seems consistent to think that the WIF will require more budget support than WIO, which needs a secretariat but a rather small staff.

5_Roadmap for implementing the new system of governance for the Internet

Democracies and members of the United Nations are now facing the major challenges. As NetMundial will come to a conclusion on April 26, 2014, the Brazilian government should call for the UN to launch the following process, and suggest to help and participate in the preparation and Sao Paolo follow-ups with a few other major governmental partners (Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, India, China, South Africa and the US). In 1944 and 1945, 4 countries prepared the draft of a UN Charter (China, United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States) after representatives of 26 countries pledged their Governments to continue fighting together the Axis Powers on January 1st, 1942, when the term ‘United Nations’ was first used by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Such a call to the United Nations, following Brazilian president speech in front of the UN General Assembly and the Sao Paulo meeting would show obvious and strong consistency at both local and international level by the Brazilian head of State following the Brazilian conference. The call would require to:

_5.1 : Set a process to finalize an “Internet Charter” by convening civil society, users and their representatives, the technical and researching community, and governmental and UN delegations in limited number. Many interesting contribution are already there to start with, including the Just Net Coalition Principles. No corporations or business associations should directly participate to establishing that Charter - they already have enough power to voice their views and try to influence the writers of such an Internet Charter.

_5.2 : Set a common process to precisely define the two new bodies (WIO & WIF), their linkage, including check and balance between them, transparency and accountability, and their common adequate roadmap. The US will have to accommodate these requests, in order to end the asymmetric governance and market dominance of the Internet. This will take away the risks that the Internet is facing today. A non digital war treaty ratification should be a natural complementary objective to that process through the WCIT/ITRs channel. A Cyber war non proliferation treaty would be welcome.

_5.3 - Set a technical advisory group to best assess the core functions of the Internet, and see how to adequately transform them, or not, and how and where to position them in the framework of a WIO –WIF system. This process would be supported by a neutral group of engineers able to assist and advice the first two process in their reflection and capacities at a technical level. Clear criteria are needed to select the participants.

_5.4 – Such a global project needs leadership, under the neutral oversight and arbitrage of the UN general secretariat. A special appointment is necessary to have a high level diplomat or a former foreign affair minister, a former prime minister, or a personality of undisputable command, a man/woman of high reputation able to handle that process with the support of a small group of special assistants. He/she would have the support of a small multistakeholder advisory board to help him/her cope with the spirit of the overall process (WIF_WIO) and philosophy.

It seems reasonable to think that 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 could be achieved over a 1-year time frame, paving the way to another 6 months to found, fund and constitute the proposed entities and system of arbitrage and justice, and do the switch from the old system. Until then, the current system would basically be stable.

Sacrificing the ICANN will not be enough for the US to restore its Internet Ethics

2013-11-12T14:43:42Z

We were only a few among media to realize, back in 2012, how arrogant and powerful was the US over its dominance of the Internet, and not just its control over the root servers and the domain name management. Policy making was at stake! Since December 2012, we know it as the US 120-member delegation to the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) left the room where over 190 nation states were convene to discuss terms of progress over agreement in international telecommunication connectivity. Its major reason was: "We do not want to see the word 'Internet' appearing in an updated telecommunication intergovernmental treaty. If the US accepts this, freedom of expression over Internet will be at stake." Everyone remembers how a large UN bashing campaign was orchestrated hand in hand by US officials (State Department, Department of Trade, Congress....) and the US Internet robber barons of our time, under the leadership of Google and the support of the subsidized heroic 'Internet Freedom Fighters', a naming closer to a talibanesque approach than of a human rights defender's view. Today, after Snowden brought evidence to the world, citizens have learnt their lesson: we are all terrorist, not to forget the German Chancellor, the Brazilian President, you and me as well. Who can now trust the US on respecting simple rules over neutrality, privacy, and honesty? Is this part of the 9/11 legacy and the Bush administration ethics? Indeed, had all nation states signed an international telecommunication treaty, the US Democracy would have either ruined its own diplomatic signature or stopped its global spying. So far no international treaty is protecting global citizens from such abuse, maybe a reason to understand why Edward Snowden decided to spoke truth to power. The citizens of the United States have had a few or no reaction, hesitating between a "I have nothing to hide" and a "I don't care if they look into my data; anyway I like to exhibit myself in social networks." Maybe they underestimate the price to pay for their authorities' choice and conduct.

The reality to be considered has an obvious economic origin and bias, on behalf on which the US is using its 'digital sovereignty' over foreign players. This 'sovereignty' is expected to help grab precious points of future growth and tens of thousands of jobs over the next decades. Already the mighty power of the Internet is putting the industry big players in a state of permanent stress as they battle to hide their profits worldwide starting with the UK, France, Germany, and all relevant markets. The gold Internet pipeline is bringing indecent power to companies like Google, Verizon, Apple... showing a poor CSR ranking, thanks to their ability to avoid paying due tax around the world. Public US authorities have also their own trade or debt challenges ahead. All of them whether private or public, bet that Internet will bring what they need most: profit and tax. If the US has organized its own market under the patronage of a few monopolies so precisely described by Susan Crawford in her Captive Audience book, many of the international telecom competitors are very unpleased with the same arrogant dominancy outside the US. Add global spying and abuse of power and you have the perfect Molotov cocktail for an international uproar. This is not to mention the gift made to all dictators around the world now celebrating the last US digital tread, a global affront, a present that nourishes the villainies the US soldiers are supposedly fighting at a heavy cost around the world. Democracy is the 'blond' in dictators' favorite jokes. All of this comes with a heavy price to all democrats. Any principle that a country pushes to the no-value zone is a very expensive asset to conquer back. Indeed, Internet is now part of our common geography and politics, and a mirror to any ethical failure.

Even though I am not a fervent Marxist, I would define Internet governance more as the superstructure where, beyond national policies, are established internationally, public policy, connectivity agreements, competition fairness, and digital ethics (first pack goes first...), by opposition to the base where corporations and technicians enjoy setting things by force of common technological and commercial sense. Both of them are not so concerned about public good. Their game is to enjoy the most effective code to maximize profits. The fact is that in order to be left alone 'ruling' the code, and the digital space revenue, they are keen to explain that Internet is a pure decentralized world that hates nothing more than to be governed. Jungle and Far-West are always more fun for the ones with the guns. "How to govern such a decentralized wildness?" ask the defenders of the status quo. In this world of 'Digital Freedom Fighters' of all kind, the 'enemy' is governance and regulation. "Regulation kills innovation." According to these bright minds - some of them paid by the Internet robber barons to protect and enlarge their baronies - Internet could not be governed except by the successful corporations.

Today, foreign countries realize that the US needs to be grounded. The big lie about the ungovernable digital space has come to an end, as national laws prevail and are about to conflict each other, as more investment is required for higher speed and connectivity, as digital inequalities between regions and continents are stretching - Google's pocket money put into balloons won't fill the Internet holes in Africa, when the fortune it is putting in fiber will reinforce Google's power over the US market, or emerging countries where Google, Facebook and other grab public digital space for little efforts. As any other common good, Internet public regulation is needed all over the world. International law is not the enemy. Vested interests are the enemy of the Netizens. This is getting clearer to many minds, including the ones who de facto control the digital world and its industry.

The White House and the US Internet Barons have now two major issues: how to calm down their very upset partners and/or competitors, and how to avoid a major digital spring that would ruin the current status-quo over their domination within the Internet governance - supposedly for our own good.

A first idea came regarding the economic issue and it went quite un-noticed after the last September G-20 meeting in Saint Petersburg. Published as the Tax to the Saint Petersburg G20 Leaders Declaration, this document claims that: "International tax rules, which date back to the 1920's, have not kept pace with the changing business environment, including the growing importance of intangibles and the digital economy. (...)... Issues to be examined include, but are not limited to, the ability of a company to have a significant digital presence in the economy of another country without being liable to taxation due to the lack of nexus under current international rules, the attribution of value created from the generation of marketable location-relevant data through the use of digital products and services, the characterization of income derived from new business models, the application of related source rules, and how to ensure the effective collection of VAT/GST with respect to the cross-border supply of digital goods and services." Or to put it simply, when a Turkish or Mexican netizen links to a Google ad, then the data related to that ad revenue will be taxed by the national fiscal authorities. Same idea would therefore applied in all G20 countries, as all of them signed for this to be implemented, including the US. This is quite a change, and indeed, France has been pushing hard on this idea, following the report published in January 2013 by Pierre Colin and Nicolas Collin for both the Ministère de l'Economie et des Finances and the Ministère du redressement productif headed by the vocal Arnaud Montebourg. Weeks ago, French digital economy minister, Fleur Pellerin argued in an interview given to the FT that: "The time has come to be more proactive on the European level, not to regulate the Internet but to regulate some platforms that have gained dominant positions and now use those dominant positions to make it impossible for smaller actors to develop and to challenge their positions. That's a problem." Ms Pellerin has been pushing the issue on the European agenda since then, with some success and aims at linking the tax base to the place where the profits are made, and proposing a revised EU value added tax by spring 2014. For the White House and the State department, it sounds like a minor blow, as the project targets mainly US corporations, and wealthy ones. Some new tax revenues might soften political wills around the digital planet. Dries Lesage, professor of globalization and global governance, at Ghent Institute for International Studies, at Ghent University brings a clear understanding of what is at stake in a paper published in the Saint Petersburg G20 preparatory documentation: "The transnational observation should give way to an entirely new regime, one that is based on unitary taxation. This means that multinationals' global profits are allocated and taxed per country, according to a formula that looks into real economic activity. The current regime, in contrast, allows multinational groups to engage in artificial cross-border transactions among their own subsidiaries, in order to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions and tax havens."

Regarding the Internet governance itself, a US idea has emerged in order to create a double-win situation. "Let's give away the ICANN to the rest of the world." From DC to London, Paris, Geneva, Istanbul, Rio, Bali, the idea is getting more popular according to sources at the IGF and other stakeholders who declined to be identified at this stage. What's the plan? The ICANN would become an international body, away from US control. Officially. Of course, it is hard to imagine that this would affect the 13 global Internet 'root-servers' run by entities based in the US (Verisign, USC-ISI, Cogent, Maryland University, Nasa, Internet Systems Consortium, Defense Information Systems Agency, United States Army, ICANN), one in the UK (RIPE NCC), one in Japan (WIDE Project), and one in Sweden (Autonomica). For the plan to work to 'sacrifice' the ICANN and impose a multi-stakeholder neoliberal model, the US needs to give the ICANN an international shine, still not a UN one. There enters an unexpected player: the Swiss who have been suffering much of the US tax blame, and lost their banking secrecy under its twist, have now a possibility to calm the fiscal US storm by giving to a future ICANN a nest, which would be "neutral" and "international". It would look UN-style without being UN. It would also reinforce the multi-stakeholder shine of the criticized ICANN. A clear definition of what means the later model is still unclear, and this vagueness might be its most enjoyable advantage. Such an institutional animal would have much room for improvisation and special arrangements - as ICANN did for 15 years so far. There is a danger that corporations' voice would equal if not overpass all governmental voices. Civil society would also participate but as their funding often comes from Corporations, they might not be so independent. Of course, the Brazilians whose president has turned this into a personal matter would have an easy reward to collect, as they could claim they have obtained a major change in Internet Governance. Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff has announced during her NY speech at the UN that her country will submit a resolution in order to change the course of the Internet governance before December 16, 2013, when the UN General assembly will take a break for 13 weeks. As the US would certainly appreciate this resolution never to surface, the president of ICANN, Fadi Chéhade visited Brazil on October 7. Chéhade met Brazilian President Roussef and Communication minister, Paulo Bernardo, and they agreed that Brazil would host an international meeting in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. "I understand that the Internet, as a new feature, requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also users, civil society, and technicians, who after all make the Internet work" Chehadé defended, adding that corporations and academics should also participate to the debate. "We must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas" Bernardo commented. This is why these days, there is growing excitement in order to announce that the ICANN might move away from a Californian non profit to a more international, multi-stakeholder model, still keeping the governments and ITU at bay in a renewed Governmental Advisory Committee already existing in the current ICANN. Last week, during a UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (on Internet related public issues), an AT&T employee and representative of an Indian business chamber said: <blockquote>"Business believes that stakeholders at the future table need to be on a equal footing to make decisions related to Internet policy."</blockquote> According to one participant to the meeting, a lot of the present working group members from private sector and civil society supported this view enthusiastically. Ultimately, such a idea would lead corporations and governments to establish together the future of Internet policy making.

On December 6, in Bern, a forum will gather a group of Swiss authorities and US stakeholders such as Internet Society and ICANN representatives. They will talk about the "Institutionalization of Global Internet Governance, Multistakeholderism, Multilateralism and Beyond". Frédéric Riehl, vice-director of the Swiss Federal Office of Communications will explain the new positioning of Switzerland in the Internet Governance landscape. The participants will also assess the multilateral model such as the ones from ITU, WTO and WIPO, during a debate moderated by Tarek Kamel, senior advisor to the ICANN President for governmental engagement. Probably the best person to do so if one considers the objective of the meeting. Everything seems to go in the right direction for the new ICANN that might join soon the Internet Society, already headquartered in Geneva.

Giving away the ICANN might please a few; the Swiss, the Brazilians, and the usual faithful digital US allies such as the Swedish and British, but what's about the Germans, the French and other Europeans, not to mention the Africans and Asians. As the single market for Telecom in Europe is at stake these days, the Europeans might have a serious talk.

By the way, what are the media telling us on this huge battle and challenge? They might buy the 'internationalization' of the ICANN as a good step forward (!?). Many among foreign governments might not go for it. The first Internet political war is going to last until we get a fair and open debate.

Jean-Christophe Nothias

An Alternative to Davos: interview with Michael Aminian

2013-11-08T08:57:27Z

Back in June 2013, a G8 meeting was imminent, announced by a flood of editorial coverage, political declarations and alter-globalization protests advocating the rights of the “Rest” over the “West”. The G8 was to take place in London—under UK presidency for the first time since Gleneagles in 2005— and spoke particularly to a country that had seen globalization raise all sorts of questions in the previous year, from multinationals’ tax avoidance scandals to the murder of a British soldier in the streets of London that revived anti-immigration sentiments.

Yet this time around, there was novelty among the predictable: personalities such as Paul Collier, David Miliband, Mary Robinson and Baroness Amos came together at Tate Modern to debate various facets of “global citizenship” as part of a two-week long ‘Cultural Forum’. Highlights included Nigerian novelist Ben Okri’s eloquent argument in favour of (re)inventing a language of globalization that would more accurately reflect current trends and identities; and Unilever CEO Paul Polman’s compelling presentation of his grand vision for sustainable businesses. The Global Journal speaks to the man behind the Cultural Forum and founder of Zamyn, Michael Aminian. His organisation has a powerful vision for an alternative to Davos: a cultural forum that aims to reconcile globalization with its true agents, the citizens of the world.

Zamyn means ‘ground’ in Farsi. What is Zamyn and how does its name relate to its purpose?

Zamyn is a sociocultural analytical organisation that was created by myself with a group of artists. We actively started in 2004, but the idea was there long before—it got delayed because of 09.11, as the focus then was on other issues. We wanted to give the organization a name that was truly global, bottom-up, and that acknowledged of the role of the individual in globalization. ‘Zamyn’ means ‘ground’ in both Farsi and Urdu, and we felt it reflected our aim of opening up the discussion of globalization to a wider population. While the cultural side of globalization is much discussed in academic circles, artists are the ambassadors of culture, and that is why Zamyn is structured around them. And, while businesses are also crucial and need to be aware that they are shifting the way culture shapes and reshapes itself, those who can explain this change are the academics, artists and writers. Therefore, Zamyn is not a consultancy but an analytical agency, which works with these individuals to analyse, document and define how culture is shaped by globalization and vice versa.

What personal journey led you to found the organisation?

As you can tell from my surname, I was born in Iran, but my family left the country in 1962. We stayed in Germany and France first, and ended up in UK. My comfort zone had been torn: I came from a totally alienated part of the world, and had to switch from a Middle-Eastern to a European culture. I was leading something of a double life between my parents’ traditional mentality and my British life. Those of us who lived like that at the time were like the guinea pigs of globalization.

Like a lot of second-generation immigrants, I faced the difficult responsibility as a child of fulfilling the hopes of my parents. I ended up studying biochemistry, yet I had no interest in continuing with research, nor in working with the family agricultural business, as at that point, my identity had shifted away from the traditional Iranian way of life. I spent about 10-15 years writing for both the Mail on Sunday and for Teheran Times, and continued to wonder where my loyalty lied. Psychoanalysis, in particular the Lacanian School, gave me the right vocabulary through which to understand my identity. I therefore began having analysis, which in the Middle-Eastern culture is unusual—people would ask me whether there was something wrong with me and I would say: ‘I am just a protégé of globalization, I am puzzled by my identity.’ I think psychoanalysis gave me a vision, an idea of the way forward.

Then, I was diagnosed with cancer, and that was a wake-up call. I had to grow up at that point and ask myself: what am I really going to deliver? I was an art collector, but I knew I was not an artist, nor a writer. However, what I did have was this experience of a global existence. Globalization was very much coming to the forefront at the time and, while it belonged to the individual, the public, economic globalization threatened to highjack it. How could we come up with a formula that prevented this from happening? We decided to create an organisation that allows the individual to be heard and recognises that they are the real asset and agent of globalization. If you look at who has been invited to be part of Zamyn, they have all either written about, or lived the process of, globalization.

Next came the challenge of how to communicate with the public: at the beginning, academic institutions expressed a lot of interest, because in a sense globalization was a very academic notion and academia consciously or unconsciously did not want to let go of its ownership of it. So we began with the London School of Economics in 2005, through a series of seminars about Culture and Globalization, chaired by Professor Henrietta L. Moore. It was a success from an academic perspective, but stopping there would defeat Zamyn’s purpose. We therefore decided on an intellectual cultural forum that would complement Davos’ World Economic Forum, would happen biennially and would be based in London. Historically, it is the place to be: it was the capital of colonisation, and London has to take ownership of its past to move forward.

What do you believe prompted such diverse personalities such as Sir Anthony Giddens, Baroness Amos or Anish Kapoor to join Zamyn?

The reason why Anish Kapoor, who is a good friend, and other theorists, analysts, artists or visionary business leaders—which is rare—were identified was because they are addressing the issue of globalization through their work. Also, I made sure that they knew that the Zamyn platform would function at the most rigorous level. These people have spent years unveiling their own theory, perfecting their work whether it is a book, a lecture, or an installation. We cannot allow the standard of an Anish Kapoor or a Steve McQueen to drop, and many organisations that approach them do not uphold this standard.

Zamyn aims at « challenging powerful categories » of centre and periphery, and creating a « shift in social attitudes ». Why is a change in consciousness so important? How does the arts contribute to it?

The West needs to develop a different approach to the so-called ‘peripheral’, ‘developing’ regions of the world. It is archaic and patronising, and unhelpful on a cultural, economic and political level. Given the current crisis in the West, it is even farcical from an economic point of view. The only way forward is by the inclusion of the rest of the world. Where Zamyn, the analysts and the artists come in is in the rephrasing, the reshaping of identity, taking it out of the intellectual space to a grass-roots level. When someone gets murdered for political or religious reasons, the attacker’s motivation sometimes stems from being degraded by those who are dominant. Zamyn aims to interrogate this relationship of dominance and rebellion.

More recently, we have started using the term “new emerging countries”, which is quite interesting linguistically: some consider this denomination an honour, but I feel it is a misrepresentation. Indeed, from a cultural point of view, how can they be “new” or “emerging”? They are built upon timeless civilizations! Once again, it fits from an economic point of view, it is another way of saying they are “fertile ground” for business from the West to move in. And, when that sort of approach is taken, it breeds bad feelings, the wrong flavour of working together. We do not believe in that at all here at Zamyn.

The Cultural Forum 2013 was on the theme of « Global Citizenship » in the lead up to the G8 summit in Ireland. Why is global citizenship important when thinking about the G-s?

The original theme was going to be migration and immigration. Migration is often a very healthy process, but one that the majority of the West does not understand. And when they do, they only handpick the aspects of it that they see as beneficial. However, as it was a difficult sell at the beginning, we decided to translate it into something softer, namely global citizenship.

Zamyn’s Chair, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, made some excellent contributions at the final “Lessons for the G8” event, available online on the Zamyn Forum website. The G8 as a concept is defunct: eight leaders trying to run the world is a formula that does not fit in an era of globalization. To paraphrase our panellist Ian Bremmer, the world is more of a « G-zero » at the moment, rather than a G8, 7 or 20. One suggestion for the G8 that came out of the various debates is that they should at the very least try to include the rest of society, perhaps as through a sort of think tank, rather than keep a top-down, elitist form of decision-making.

What would be for you a criterion of success in the coming years?

It is a tough question, because I have such high standards. After eight years of psychoanalysis, I believe you never really arrive at an end product! However, if we can put on the map a real intellectual cultural forum, that truly embraces the process of globalization and allows the public to take an ownership of it, if we achieve 50% of that, I will regard it to be successful.

Laura Bullon-Cassis

www.zamynforum.org

www.zamyn.org

The DRC Gold Trade Pipeline Now Heading to Swiss Court

2013-11-05T13:26:20Z

To many observers’ surprise, the Swiss Federal Prosecutor has opened a criminal case against Argor Hereaus, a major Swiss Gold refinery company, immediately after TRIAL, the Swiss based anti-impunity NGO along with the Conflict Awareness Project and the Open Society Justice Initiative, held a press conference in Geneva to announce that they had just submitted a criminal denunciation against Argor to the Swiss Federal Prosecutor. The investigation and the evidence gathered indicated that Argor might have refined almost 3 tons of illicit gold between 2004 and 2005. These 3 tons were part of the gold trade pipeline exporting the looted natural resource from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) through Uganda in violation of the embargo imposed by the UN Security Council in 2003.

The work done by TRIAL has been challenging in order to bring enough evidence for the denunciation to the Swiss Federal Prosecutor. TRIAL’s investigation shows that the Swiss private company knew the origin of the gold, and could not ignore several facts: this gold would bring additional financial means to the militia operating in DRC, it would help forcing people and children to work for them, and maintain the incentive driving the criminals. As early as January 2005, the UN experts officially identified the Swiss company as part of the gold illicit trade pipeline that was fully traced – at every single stage - by their investigation all the way from the mine in Ituri (DRC) to Switzerland. At the time, Argor - who took over the job of refining this gold from a South African refinery that stopped in 2004 doing this business over concerns with the Gold’s Congolese origin and the UN monitoring - was immediately contacted by the experts trying to obtain contradictory views from the Swiss and British companies involved. “Very early on, we had internal discussions with the UN Security Council, remember Kathi Lynn Austin, one of the experts who kept working on the case since then. “As a UN group, we were not prosecuting any individual or company, but simply trying to investigate and document violations of the UN resolution banning from any support direct or indirect to the radical rebels and criminals operating in DRC. Argor was clearly one of the violators named in the list, an information that was published in the UN report and therefore recommending to the UN Security Council to take sanctions such as for example, setting an asset freeze against Argor. But the decision taken by the Security Council was only to put the African companies or individuals on a UN targeted sanctions list for these illicit activities. One of the reasons for that was because the UK and Switzerland were powerful allies that would protect their national corporations. The Swiss and British authorities, responsible under the UN regime to prosecute any author of UN resolution’s violation, never called upon the UN experts group to bring their evidences, and never launched a formal prosecution.” Indeed, at the time, the Swiss mission to the UN in New York, then represented by Peter Maurer - today chairman of the International Red Cross - went on to support Argor, mentioning the already devastating effects of the media coverage against the Swiss refinery, and supposedly affecting its activities. Maurer should not have worried too much, as Argor posted in 2006 a “2005 best profit in years”. When ultimately in May 2005, the Swiss authorities decided to enforce the sanction regime, weeks after Argos had officially claimed it had stopped refining the Ugandan gold – or to be precise the one from the pillage in DRC- and therefore would not be exposed to prosecution.

According to TRAIL, the Swiss refinery knew or should have assumed that the gold resulted from pillage, a war crime, not to mention the fact that Uganda gold production is notoriously close to nothing, not to mention the fact that the South African refinery drop the job in 2004 due to its awareness of the origin of the gold.

Kathi Lynn Austin, now director at the Conflict Awareness Project comes today with additional evidence of the crime, on top of what the UN report already disclosed to the UN Security Council back in 2005, all of which has been delivered to the Swiss justice. Even though it was unpredictable whether the Swiss Federal Prosecutor would accept to open the case, the story was going to be difficult for Argor. “Even if Argor-Hereaus SA was able at the time (2005) to escape UN sanctions under the embargo, that does not mean that it did not violate Swiss Law” said Bénédict de Moerloose, the lawyer in charge at TRIAL (Track Impunity Always).

For Philip Grant, director of TRIAL: “it is unacceptable that pillaged raw material that are feeding violence in a brutal and horrific war should be refined and prepared for marketing in Switzerland, with total impunity. This should serve as a reminder that corporations are subject to the law and must also be held accountable”.

Whatever national identity they have, indeed.

Jean-Christophe Nothias

©The Anti-Pillage Campaign / TRIAL

www.trial-ch.org

www.conflictawareness.org

www.opensocietyfoundations.org

Also: “Corporate War Crimes” by James G. Stewart, The Open Society Institute, 2012.

An Eye On The Sector

2013-05-22T18:21:15Z

Etienne Eichenberger, Executive Director of WISE, sat down with The Global Journal to discuss his views on the NGO sector.

What is your interest in NGOs?

I have worked with civil society for the last 15 years. In the past I collaborated with the Avina Foundation in Latin America in the field of social entrepreneurship, and supported the Schwab Foundation while at the World Economic Forum. Today, I am the co-founder of a leading boutique philanthropy consultancy. We advise a range of clients in fulfilling their philanthropic aspirations. I am also Vice President of Sustainable Finance Geneva and a board member of several foundations. Many paths lead me to NGOs as you can see.

What do you see as the biggest trend in the sector over the last 1-2 years?

There are more long-term underlying trends that remain key, such as accountability and related issues of transparency. However, another interesting trend is the fact that social innovations in transition countries – or so-called ‘poor’ countries – have begun to be replicated in developed economies. Let me give two examples. One of your Top 100 NGOs of last year, Friends International, has been asked to test a model – developed originally in South East Asia – in the United States. Their approach to working with disadvantaged youth is seen as standard-setting. Another example is the ‘Fight for Peace’ model developed in Brazil being exported to prisons in the United Kingdom.

Have you observed any challenges for NGOs linked to the financial crisis?

NGOs have grown more professional due to numerous factors, though the influence of limited financial resources is certainly one key element. This has been caused by the diminished performance of foundations, and the financial constraints imposed on public funding. At the same time, the financial crisis has also brought new ideas and talent into the sector. In a certain way, the crisis has provided an opportunity to rethink our status quo.

What is the most innovative NGO you have worked with?

I often think we fool ourselves by equating social innovation with technical innovation. At the last European Venture Philanthropy Association meeting in Dublin, a speaker suggested “social innovation is not what is new, but what works better.” I like this quote because it helps us to move beyond the paradigm that only new is better. I think, however, that Arc en-Ciel in Lebanon is a very innovative model in its context – it is very interesting to see how an organization can create great value in a tense environment. Arc-en-Ciel began operations after the civil war with wheel chairs, but today pursues six development streams, including medical waste management and eco-agriculture. Its founders have seen a weak state as an opportunity to create social value.

What do you think is the NGO model of the future?

NGOs, like businesses, are all about diversity – from small and medium size enterprises to global corporations. Their respective challenges are hardly the same, and neither are their models. Future models will depend on numerous factors, driven by an NGO’s mission. For instance, an advocacy NGO will need to further strengthen its independence, an NGO focused on service delivery will need to continue to innovate with regard to generating revenues. But both small and large NGOs will need to be more accountable in terms of impact and the quality of their delivery. The time when NGOs had a blank check to “do the right thing” is gone.

Photo © DR

Give It Up

2013-05-21T16:02:16Z

Why Philanthropy Matters: How the Wealthy Give, and What it Means for Our Economic Well-Being, Zoltan J Acs, Princeton University Press, $29.95.

In Why Philanthropy Matters, Zoltan Acs traces the role of philanthropy in the history of the United States, arguing the practice is a cornerstone of American-style capitalism and intrinsically linked to entrepreneurship, opportunity and wealth creation. In Arcs’ view, the success of the American model has developed through a dynamic process both enabling and requiring philanthropy: giving is a catalyst for innovation (proxy for wealth creation) and a creator of opportunities (softening inevitable inequality). The combination of capitalistic entrepreneurship and philanthropic giving is depicted as unique among developed nations and ripe for export.

The numerous examples Acs supplies may be enticing, but the assumptions and conclusions remain unpersuasive. The role of philanthropy in shaping the uniqueness of American-style capitalism is neither proven, nor convincingly demonstrated. Indeed, one could argue philanthropy was not an inherent cultural element, but a necessary offset to a weak social system. Moreover, philanthropic initiatives not focused on innovation and capitalistic progress – for instance, those devoted to the arts, environment and labor rights – are merely considered. The same goes for international aid.

While punctuated by amusing anecdotes, this is an American-centric book valuable mostly for the insights it offers on why American philanthropy has mattered to America.

-MC

38 - Marie Stopes International

2013-04-24T12:42:32Z

Family planning on a global scale.

HQ Location: United Kingdom

Founded in 1976 on the basis of a vision to make family planning available to women and men around the world, Marie Stopes International is active in 42 countries, delivering reproductive health care and maternal health services to some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Though the organization operates over 600 service centers, the bulk of its work is carried out in remote, inaccessible and underserved communities via a pioneering system of clinical outreach teams. Marie Stopes International has also been an innovator in using a social franchise network – clinics, midwives and pharmacies – to scale up access, assure quality and leverage economies of scale to achieve pricing savings for clients.

To read more about the Top NGOs rankings click here.

37 - FrontlineSMS

2013-04-24T12:40:08Z

Mobile technology for social change.

HQ Location: Kenya

Launched in 2004, FrontlineSMS is the brainchild of Ken Banks. During his work at Kruger National Park, Banks noticed that instead of the Internet, outlying communities used mobile phones for all communication needs. Following six weeks of “recoding on the kitchen table,” the FrontlineSMS interface was born. With a diverse range of functions – including FrontlineSMS: Credit, which allows users to send and receive mobile payments, as well as FrontlineSMS:Radio, enabling twoway dialogue between broadcasting companies and listeners in marginalized communities – FrontlineSMS is able to constantly evolve to match the development of mobile technology. Validating the organization’s commitment to a free, open-source platform, users downloaded the software 20,000 times in 2011 alone.

To read more about the Top NGOs rankings click here.

36 - Aflatoun

2013-04-24T12:34:51Z

The dollars and cents of financial literacy.

HQ Location: Netherlands

Inspiring disadvantaged children to know their rights, practice saving and launch enterprises, Aflatoun began in 1991 in Mumbai as an action research project affiliated with the Tata School of Social Studies. By leveraging a large network of implementing partners – ranging from local community groups to large international NGOs – Aflatoun has since provided social and financial skills to over 1.3 million children and youth in more than 90 countries via an innovative, activity-based program. The organization has also worked effectively in an advocacy context, with an Aflatoun module being included in UNICEF’s Child Friendly Schools curriculum, and its annual ‘Children & Change’ publication serving as an authoritative source of data and research for the broader child finance movement.

To read more about the Top NGOs rankings click here.

35 - Water For People

2013-04-24T12:30:27Z

Creative and sustainable water solutions.

HQ Location: United States

Every day, nearly 6,000 people die from water-related illnesses, the vast majority children lacking access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities. Recognizing that part of the problem is the prevalence of good-hearted but unsustainable interventions, Water For People has developed an innovative model based on close collaboration with local communities and full coverage across entire districts and regions, rather than ad hoc projects at the household and village level. Local groups must be willing to not only contribute in-kind labor and funding to an entire project, but also participate in planning, implementation, operations, maintenance and repair. Across ten countries, Water For People is transforming the lives of over 300,000 people – for the long-term.

To read more about the Top NGOs rankings click here.