<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On Friday 06 March 2015 12:53 AM, Shawna Finnegan wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Michael,
While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the
discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your
question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of
'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been
that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various
multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it
is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support
our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively
engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council.
Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing
discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced
cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation
is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet governance:
"Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a means
to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance that
enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva
Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and
prosperous world.”
(from our submission:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf">http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf</a>)
There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' over
a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Shawna, two things in the above regard. First, unlike democracy we
just dont know what multistakeholderism is - even in its
ideal-typical form, and how it works to produce public policy, the
key question here. I asked this question specifically responding on
27th Feb to Anriette's email, but got no response. And to leave it
not vague, also cited two specific hypothetical policy documents,
asking how in your scheme of things these would be best produced.
Once we know the answer, we will really be able to compare it with
the alternative - known and practised democratic means (which if you
want me to describe, I happily will, at least my best conception of
such a method).<br>
<br>
Second, it indeed there is no binary or dilemma, as you say, APC
and other CS people present there should perhaps have put their foot
down as solidly as JNC did against those who said 'democracy had
baggage', and therefore, while the 'multistakeholder' word would be
in the document, 'democracy' wont be. It is 'they' who posed this
'false dilemma' and you should perhaps be arguing with them. (Did
the CS groups/ people that were present even object to the
'democracy has baggage' assertion? No, they did not.)<br>
<br>
We can make these points in discussions here, but those must also
match the visible action on the ground, which really counts, either
contributing to or taking away from the real political struggles.
Some very significant political things happened in Paris yesterday,
and there are responsibilities and accountabilities for that, beyond
words presented in these discussions, and I mean no dis-respect from
them, because I am indeed happy that you are presenting a case. I am
just saying what I politically think about the situation, and I
cannot be dishonest about it.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> APC engages
where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
Shawna
On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on
by significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference
to "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology
of "multistakeholderism
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/"><https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/></a>"
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of
space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite
"demeaning" of all those who were in any way a party to this
travesty.
This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the
responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and
equally of the provenance of the funding support provided for the
Civil Society component who were able to attend this event and thus
provide the overall framework of legitimacy for this output
document should I think raise alarm bells among any with a degree
of independent concern for how normative structures are evolving
(or "being evolved") in this sphere.
BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of
multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its
own normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
M
-----Original Message----- From:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>] On Behalf Of Anriette
Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>
Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"
Dear all
Just an explanation and some context.
I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was
to review comments on the draft statement and support the chair
and secretariat in compiling drafts.
The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC
(Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which
greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final
draft).
The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
reason other than it came during the final session and the
Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked
directly to the Study.
It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final
study report rather than in the outcome statement.
Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of
the discussion.
It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never
really an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic
to multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the
NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for
that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the
meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very
particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so
contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly
linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This
means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be
used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of
multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having
'democratic'
in front of multistakeholder.
In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments')
into the text.
At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic
multistakeholder', but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that
they are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and
political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could
insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference
to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not
find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously,
but that the number of objections to this text were far greater
than the number of requests for putting it in.
This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated
in this way.
There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in
the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of
the government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that
anonymity is illegitimate.
Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in
documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the
gains vs. the losses.
In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in
the global south who will put issues that are important to us on
its agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more
people from civil society, particularly from developing countries,
to learn, participate and influence internet-related debates with
policy-makers.
Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really
know what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive
and they demean not only the work of the civil society
organisations or individuals you name, but also the work - and what
I believe to be the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
Anriette
On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jeremy Malcolm <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"><mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org></a>>
wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><mailto:gurstein@gmail.com></a>>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others
on the
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social
and
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document
meant to
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">have global significance?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">With pleasure. This is why:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-t">http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is
JNC's
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual
position of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">JNC.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human
right,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">even if there are countries where this is not currently
implemented
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be
democratic.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this
as
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">follows:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of
the
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Internet that are democratic and participative.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism
is
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">implemented in a way that is not democratic.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global
governance
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our
foundational
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which
are
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">democratic *and* participative.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims
is
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">participative.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is that so hard to understand???
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an
earlier
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ...
the
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite
full
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">of factually false assertions. I have now published my response
(which
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm">http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Greetings,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Norbert
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://JustNetCoalition.org">http://JustNetCoalition.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To be removed from the list, visit:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For all other list information and functions, see:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________ You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>. To unsubscribe or change your
settings, visit: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>