CGI. br: Brazilian Internet Steering Committee Multistakeholder and Multi-Participatory Governance of the Internet in Brazil The Internet's multistakeholder and multi-participatory governance in Brazil came from the need to make it compatible with its global character - technologically dynamic, decentered, alive, open, and collaboratively developed. The nineteen people who follow will tell us some of this story: [Tadao Takahashi: CGI.
br board member (1995/1999-2003)] Many people ask why Internet's first Steering Committee [Creator and Coordinator, RNP] was a multistakeholder one. Actually, [Academic sector] there had been no demand for this by the federal government. In fact, it took us some effort to convince the Ministry of Communications that it had to be done this way.
But there were precedents when one looked at the world and saw that this was the kind of governance to be conducted. [Luci Pirmez: CGI. br board member (2004 – 2008)] The first graduated professors.
. . [Academic sector] I mean, professors with a doctorate.
. . were coming back to Brazil.
And they started forming groups and having conversations with the government about the need for a web to interconnect the several universities. They all came from the USA and Europe, where this access already existed. The engagement of Brazilian researchers [Virgílio Almeida: CGI.
br board member (2011 – )] in bringing [Secretary, IT Policy, Ministry of Science & Technology] this network idea to Brazil, [Government sector] and also the possibility to interconnect people and computers, was the most advanced trend at the time, and is certainly one of the important contributions that computing researchers have made to Brazil's technological development. [Carlos Afonso: CGI. br board member (1995-1997/2003-)] Then came ECO-92.
[Access providers/nonprofit sectors] In May 1990, in San Francisco, we founded – and by "we" I mean a group of eight or nine entities from Nicaragua, England, I think there was someone from the Phillippines, can't recall. . .
from the USA, obviously, obviously, and we Brazilians . . .
we founded the Association for Progressive Communications, in order to enhance the communication among those entities, using the resources available at the time. Right after that, in May 1990, the idea for ECO-92 came up. Together, for the first time in its meetings, the UN originated the idea to start what is known today as multistakeholder practice, a pluralistic approach, that would bring civil entities - not only governments - to take part in conferences.
. . and that was a game changer, a paradigm shift.
Then the challenge came: how many civil entities, in the world, have resources to travel anywhere? In that case, going to Rio and taking part in ECO-92, in person. Most of them couldn't.
But many others either were or knew someone that was connected to that network we were building up, which then became APC's network. Then, the proposal: let's now take this opportunity to bring permanent Internet connection to Brazil, to avoid doing that via modem, or X-25. And our proposal was to start using Internet's TCP/IP.
And what does "we" mean here? It means the academic community that was with us, mainly with Tadao Takahashi - the head of it all, on the academic side. We, on the side of civil society, and that activism allowed UFRJ, Rio's Federal University, and FAPESP, here in São Paulo, to maintain a constant connection with the Internet That was the political side of it.
The fact that the Internet was born a group inside the Ministry of Science and Technology is is something natural today, when you look back. Because that was precisely where there was a will to finance innovation, novelty, whatever was new in the science and computing field. The beginning of 1995 was [Ivan Moura Campos: CGI.
br coordinator (1995-1998/1999-2003)] a time of much growth, [Secretary, IT Policy, Ministry of Science & Technology] because back them [Government sector] Renato Guerreiro and I had orders from our ministers that were like: "Reach an agreement, you two. All right? " We wanted what was written in that resolution, the Normative Resolution in the Inter-Ministerial Ordinance.
It reads. . .
you know, what was obtained from those discussions: "The access to the Internet is not a telecommunications service, it is a value added service. " Then came Sergio Motta's contribution: "It belongs to the private initiative. " We, in the academy, were asking for less.
We would say, "Let us be providers as well", because we didn't think they would restrict Telebras, which still existed, before going private the next year, 1996. [Demi Getschko: CGI. br board member (1995- 1997/2004-)] Norm 4 came as a result of that discussion [Director NIC.
br] I mentioned, that we had convinced the minister at the time about the importance of maintaining the division of those two layers. Back then there was no Anatel the infrastructure was held by the state, so we didn't want it to be treated the normal and commercial way, by state agencies or private companies. The Internet in Brazil changed completely after Norm 4 in 1995, which imposed the end of Embratel's monopoly, and defined the Internet as a value added service – not a simple telecommunications service.
On 31 May, there came Inter-Ministerial Ordinance #147, setting up the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. CGI. br's emergence [Liane Tarouco: CGI.
br board member (1997-2000)] was an organized movement. . .
[Academic sector] the academic people and some government sectors saw serious risk in all that Internet growth which was then mainly academic but becoming commercial as well, being captured by the telecommunications agencies. They saw a strong revenue source in that segment. And there was a movement, and not a very subtle one, by Embratel, for instance, which understood that it was all covered by that monopoly law.
Some divisions of the government saw that happening and made an effort. But only the government standing up against Embratel, which in a certain way belonged to the government, was a delicate issue. So that's why the multistakeholder committee became involved, bringing other voices that would support it, saying, "That's what the market needs for the development of this country".
[Sílvio Meira: CGI. br board member (1995-1997)] The last twenty years have shown that [Nonprofit sector] the model devised for Internet's Steering Committee in Brazil in the early nineties is genuinely up to date. With the Decree No.
4,829 in 2003 CGI. br was improved in two ways: an increase in the number of members, from 9 to 21; and a change in the way the representatives were chosen: before that, the government would nominate those in the committee, and after the decree it was established that that every sector would elect its representative in its own electoral college. Sérgio Amadeu: CGI.
br board member (2003-2007/2011-2014)] In 1995 the Steering Committee was formed, [Office of the Presidential Chief of Staff] with representatives from 4 segments. [Government/nonprofit sectors] But who was to nominate each representative? The president.
Actually, it would be done by two ministers in the Inter-Ministerial Ordinance: the Minister of Communications and the Minister of Science and Technology. Therefore, the government was to choose who the representatives would be. We had two things in mind: the government had to be a minority in that committee, and what we tried to have approved was that every segment should enjoy parity inside the Steering Committee, but it was not possible.
Their argument was that the government was entitled to have more influence inside the structure under their responsibility. We had a different argument: the government already wields enormous power. We argued that we needed to empower society, academy, and the representatives of the market, and do it in between elections.
[Hartmut Glaser: CGI. br executive secretary (2013-)] During President Lula's term, [NIC. br director] which began in January 2003, I think sectors of civil society, which were a lot more active than during the previous president's term, with more pressure and more access to the government, brought pressure to bear in order to have more representation.
Then the choice of having this model was made: 9 governmental representatives and 12 non-governmental representatives. [Veridiana Alimonti: CGI. br board member (2011-2014)] Civil society brings a critical perspective [Nonprofit Sector] not only to theoretical subjects but also to processes, demanding that decisions should not be made only by those with economic or political power but also by those who are theoretically represented by that power, or the object of that power.
But they cannot be a mere object, they have to be a subject as well. And civil society, with the multistakeholder model, has been making progress in this direction, inside CGI. br.
This is a major complaint about the Brazilian government in discussions of international governance. [Cássio Vecchiatti: CGI. br board member (1998-2008/2011-2014)] CGI.
br's model is, to me, [User business sector] among the best ways to answer what the business people are asking for. Because there is someone representing the business people and the business sector in the Committee discussing that at high level with the other segments, including the government. [Eduardo Levy: CGI.
br board member (2011-)] I am a fan, and I am a critic [Infrastructure sector] of the multistakeholder debate in the CGI. br. I am a fan of the richness of the debate involving the actors and the issue of the Internet.
And the criticism I do have is that there is no economic viewpoint on the matter. That's my view. [Manuel Lousada Soares: CGI.
br board member (1995-2005)] If we think of the CGI. br [Ministry of Development, Industry & Foreign Trade] and its resulting entity, [Government sector] which back in the day was NIC. br, it seemed to be the right way to impart flexibility to the proper use of Internet resources and to make it institutional.
I would say the best expression of that proper use is the technical quality of the services provided by NIC. br. An example: collecting data about the Internet in Brazil.
There was a concern here about quality. . .
"We've got to do something with quality, and we are doing something with quality". That is a good use of the resources. Collecting that data is not inexpensive, but it's a result that I want to see being used for other things.
And other things, like security. . .
Brazil is considered to be highly competent in that area. The encouragement for academia, the change from IPv4 to IPv6, all the work that has been done to get people trained so that would happen smoothly . .
. that is great. But, can there be more?
I think so. [Nelson Simões: CGI. br board member (2002-2011)] That process has been continuously improved.
[Academic sector] And I think that's the way to go, it shouldn't be closed, and it has to be dynamic, which allows us to see if the multistakeholder approach is actually representing important segments. [Antonio Tavares: CGI. br board member (2000-2008)] It was easier for God to write the Ten Commandments than [Access providers sector] it was for the Steering Committee to produce the Decalogue, which involved a number of decisions and principles and even definitions.
It took some time but, again, common sense prevailed and a quality, high-level conclusion was reached, with clear, objective and succinct definitions. [Augusto Gadelha: CGI. br coordinator (2006-2011)] I think it was the first moment of that process.
. . [Secretary, IT Policy, Ministry of Science & Technology] Demi Getschko [Government sector] came to me and said, “ Gadelha…” I don't know if he spoke directly to me or in the Committee, he said we should create some kind of .
. . Well, we should write some explanation about what the Internet is, what it isn't, and I believe the word he used was "principles".
We should determine some principles so that people understand what the Internet is. [Maximiliano Martinhão: CGI. br board member (2013-)] One of CGI.
br's roles is to build a consensus. . .
[Ministry of Communications] but an almost volunteer consensus, [Government sector] not an imposed one. You see the development that is being done now to the implementation of IPv6. CGI.
br has brought all stakeholders, articulated with NIC. br, and it went on building the development for the transition to IPv6. Challenges, debates, consensus and recommendations.
The Internet Steering Committee of Brazil, in its two first decades, has evolved and contributed to the Internet's development. Facing obstacles and criticism, but constantly seeking a way to ensure the best future for the Internet. The committee itself, and other agents must show now an example of how they will coordinate and collaborate in the next twenty years.
That is the problem. We usually . .
. in the whole world but mainly in Brazil, we have this habit of telling the story as if it were linear. The systematization and simplification give us a false idea that the story itself was simple.
And it wasn't, none of it was, and it won't be from now on. So what's the difficulty now? We have twenty years of history.
There are organizations that took positions inside the complex concerto of coordination and articulation of the Internet in Brazil. Those positions are not currently needed, but may represent a core of power. What now?
[Marcelo Bechara: CGI. br board member (2005-2011/2012-2014)] That may be the greatest challenge [Ministry of Communications/Anatel] we now face: how to balance [Government sector] the committee's need to act for an Internet that is more and more present in people's lives and more commercial than academic, without threatening the existence of research, innovation, technological development. After all, these still sustain the Internet.
I would say that part of Internet's governance in Brazil, in the future, has to do with revisiting both NIC. br and CGI. br, but not merging them in an entity that is solely governmental or solely private.
You must see what effectively deserves empowerment, and really work to empower it. This entire system has no precedents or similar examples outside Brazil.
