<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA512<br>
<br>
...and adding to what Anriette said below, we are shocked to see
such a response from veterans and leaders of CSOs on IG. This
unfortunately, completely negates the spirit of working together.<br>
<br>
We have to continue to work together and strive for more building
upon and capitalizing on the small successes here an there.<br>
<br>
Thanks and best wishes<br>
Shahzad<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/5/15 3:35 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Dear all<br>
><br>
> Just an explanation and some context.<br>
><br>
> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role
was to<br>
> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair
and<br>
> secretariat in compiling drafts.<br>
><br>
> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast
majority of<br>
> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and
onsite.<br>
><br>
> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC
(Richard<br>
> made several editorial suggestions which improved the text)
and text<br>
> from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly
improved<br>
> weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).<br>
><br>
> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded
for any<br>
> reason other than it came during the final session and the
Secretariat<br>
> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to
the Study.<br>
> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights,
and to<br>
> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final
study<br>
> report rather than in the outcome statement.<br>
><br>
> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the
outcome of the<br>
> discussion.<br>
><br>
> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was
never really an<br>
> option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to<br>
> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the
NETmundial<br>
> statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that
Norbert) I<br>
> would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of
democratic<br>
> However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular
angle to why<br>
> "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis
Agenda the<br>
> word "democratic" is directly linked with the word
"multilateral" -<br>
> every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who
feel that<br>
> 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given
to the<br>
> importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the
debate back<br>
> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having
'democratic'<br>
> in front of multistakeholder.<br>
><br>
> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code
for<br>
> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among
governments') into<br>
> the text.<br>
><br>
> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic
multistakeholder', but<br>
> because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.<br>
><br>
> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is
that they are<br>
> full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and
political<br>
> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.<br>
><br>
> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we
could insert<br>
> (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference
to<br>
> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could
not find<br>
> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that<br>
> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.<br>
><br>
> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this
seriously, but<br>
> that the number of objections to this text were far greater
than the<br>
> number of requests for putting it in.<br>
><br>
> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are
negotiated in<br>
> this way.<br>
><br>
> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption
as<br>
> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of
expression in the<br>
> early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of
the<br>
> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states
that anonymity<br>
> is illegitimate.<br>
><br>
> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants
in documents<br>
> we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains
vs. the losses.<br>
><br>
> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
Supporting<br>
> it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in the
global south<br>
> who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda,
which will,<br>
> I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil
society,<br>
> particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate
and<br>
> influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.<br>
><br>
> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't
really know<br>
> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive
and they<br>
> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations
or<br>
> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe
to be the<br>
> values - of the Just Net Coalition.<br>
><br>
> Anriette<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100<br>
>> Jeremy Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"><jmalcolm@eff.org></a> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><gurstein@gmail.com></a><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy
and others on the<br>
>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy"
and "social and<br>
>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a
document meant to<br>
>>>> have global significance?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> With pleasure. This is why:<br>
>>><br>
>>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users">http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users</a><br>
>><br>
>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy
claims is JNC's<br>
>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an
actual position of<br>
>> JNC.<br>
>><br>
>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.<br>
>><br>
>> We insist that just like governance at national levels
must be<br>
>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a
human right,<br>
>> even if there are countries where this is not currently
implemented<br>
>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also
be democratic.<br>
>><br>
>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration,
states this as<br>
>> follows:<br>
>><br>
>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with
regard to<br>
>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to
establish<br>
>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global
governance of the<br>
>> Internet that are democratic and participative.<br>
>><br>
>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which
multistakeholderism is<br>
>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.<br>
>><br>
>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for
global governance<br>
>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our
foundational<br>
>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the
Internet which are<br>
>> democratic *and* participative.<br>
>><br>
>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy
claims is our<br>
>> goal, which he describes as “limited type of
government-led<br>
>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.<br>
>><br>
>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic
*and*<br>
>> participative.<br>
>><br>
>> Is that so hard to understand???<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to
an earlier<br>
>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there
"revealed ... the<br>
>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to
be quite full of<br>
>> factually false assertions. I have now published my
response (which had<br>
>> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at<br>
>><br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm">http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm</a><br>
>><br>
>> Greetings,<br>
>> Norbert<br>
>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://JustNetCoalition.org">http://JustNetCoalition.org</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>><br>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>><br>
>> Translate this email:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></span><br>
<br>
- -- <br>
Shahzad Ahmad<br>
Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan<br>
IM: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:shahzad@jit.si">shahzad@jit.si</a> | Google Talk: bytesforall<br>
Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup<br>
Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981<br>
<br>
PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU+DgMAAoJEKVOI9utV3a+ousP/1cTWhLd3jzVtxr6vm10pcjT<br>
gQMJYlAQR0hb97gIj4MPvjnCtWJu3FW1acKiHb6a2SbRnOKP+//ZRtSA5rITjnzh<br>
cVyAUEEsfdOZq50pSQtL/QU4P5SIvRiuRJKwduurVWXkcShDS1Z2sVSXf9tS5aV/<br>
EVPBqw7i5h8hXuNsPW3t1vWERXp1drDamtuZFHq79E52wm5EogZ2aloeHrPQOn7K<br>
rMaiZHQp7qanACcDw8juWK3E6myNZlIzmYKx4n/W7nTMy4X14tyKWu46RsA3J55A<br>
1aaJX3EU9BLRp1DvAOG13WhLCZ4RxJoN0UKqLYtaEiV923hru7SOGvuAQR7wJ2pK<br>
SSpmO4GiwxubTwfhHLH7yjtmd750MR4DZpnAGQr7GJDVo5LZI6JcMTkef/q3uhBl<br>
mi9nn2yuDFDVajik9xPNHOCqFl5ZRBE2hTHgtDnmBRnP/3KZcVLUzZAv5DwkbqID<br>
sqg5qkV1EQo4L7zhK2gsQSrnjyyNzspZQ5Dd06T8Ja1vHUX8uspvioVmVpm+Pn+P<br>
ZuToKMTE3TKCeJbGyZqMC3bWyGuBLF+wdu6CiA3eC/d67rqTLNfVz1JrmLzPNBZm<br>
S4loFtHK0hJsitl6IwlPG6jRoJ7Lw5UwYoAhNbwfCO1fi3+VoRMzRGgFGTnx1uzZ<br>
oqs38JMYiwAi5mjfSVWj<br>
=xy+J<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>