[governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Mar 17 14:23:37 EDT 2014
On Monday 17 March 2014 07:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>
>
>
> SNIP
>
> For me 'multistakeholderism" is just a fashionable way to call a form
> of inclusive policymaking process.
Call it participatory democracy... These are books and books on it, and
decades of practice all of the world.... Eschew fashions when they could
suggest dangerous slippages on the very ideal which one want to
represent fashionably.
> I see stakeholders as part of the people.
Part of people? Meaning? Just say people, wont that do... (other than
that business is not people, and to get over this problem alone the word
stakeholders is preferred to people)
> I don't think people need or should need some validation from
> political parties before they can directly participate in policymaking.
No not at all, They are the ultimate validators. How can they need
validation? But what has people's sovereignty to do, for instance, with
the fact that WCIT was being called not open on the ground that Google
could not vote at par with (however inadequately democratic) governments
like India, Brazil or Kenya or Netherlands. (Yes, precisely this was
said repeatedly.)... I am ready to be explained...
> This may even happen with traditional policymaking issues (the ones
> that can be easily confined to a national polity) if the elected
> officials are enlightened enough to constantly consult with the people
> and the affected groups in their decision making processes.
Here you say ' consult' , in the next line 'voice for policy making',
later again you speak of voice in policy making....
I repeat, I said three things, and emphasised each, 'formal role,
'public policies' and 'actual decision making'..... And I am ready to
discuss the meaning of each of them. I never spoke of consultation,
voice in policy making and so on.... I firmly believe that everyone has
to have voice in policy making, and need to be consulted....
I referred this blog earlier to Stephanie that I did on IGF kind of
institution as version 3 of democracy
http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy
What more can I say about cardinal significance of consulting and giving
voice to everyone in a democracy... Therefore, I would like that my view
may not be mis represented again and again..
My organisation perhaps does more work on participatory democracy and
the ground level that most organisations here.... We have been involved
with some very important work pre legislative
processes being carried on in India.... Just to say, please do not
mistake participatory democracy with IG style MSism which seeks 'full
parity of all stakeholders'.
> But sticking to political parties or formal processes as the sole
> source of legitimate voice for policymaking becomes even more
> problematic on issues where we depend so much on each other across the
> world. So for me, while the concept and its implementation may not be
> mature, stable and robust enough to stand all relevant tests,
> "multistakeholderism" is just an attempt to get people (at least those
> who are aware among those affected by the policies) to participate in
> the policymaking in some orderly fashion (i.e. the organizing in
> stakeholders.)
Yes, this orderly fashion is key... Democracies had always many such
orderly fashions, trade unions, feminist groups, all kind of civil
society formulations of so many different kinds, various interest
groups.... What did MSism add ... well it gave all these one third of
non gov space, and apportioned the rest equally between big business and
larger pro business community of technical people invested in specific
technical organisations.. How did democracy gain here.
As for MSism meaning having formal platforms for consultation, even
agenda setting, outside the influence of policy makers, pl see my blog
above... that is the great step forward that IGF should have been, but
alas... Anyway, it could still be,
>
> Now, I'm not naive. I know this is far from being perfect and the
> process can be captured and become an instrument for special interests
> with no much regard for public interest. That's where our focus should
> be, trying to make sure special interests do not use the mantle of
> stakeholders to drown out the voice and interests of the people.
> Granted, that's a tall order. But saying that political parties,
> elections, or other formal processes are the only way for legitimate
> representation, the only way to have a voice in the policymaking
> process is where we will have hard time finding an agreement. Maybe we
> shouldn't have called that "multistakeholder", maybe the boundaries of
> stakeholders are ill-conceived and they should be something else, and
> clearly the checks and balances for "multistakeholderism" leave much
> to be desired as of now and we still have a lot of work to do, but
> governments and political parties cannot be the only answer, can they?
A lot of people have been looking at other answers... But the best of
those efforts do not go through the alleys of big business, which is
considered a problem rather that a close ally in the quest for
democraticing our societies.
IN the end, Mawaki, I asked a precise question about a specific kind of
political function and whether you admitted 'equal roles' regarding it
(including of course of business) , and so why do you not answer that
specific question rather we discuss in general the ills of current
democratic forms.
parminder
>
>
> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding',
>
>
> See my comments/responses above, and the current version of the statement.
>
> I think that those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders'
> meme, want a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar
> role as someone coming from a formal political process - called
> governments - in making actual decision making. THis is death of
> democracy.
>
>
> I hope not.
> Now please let's focus on the statement and finalize it (the broader
> discussion on MSism will certainly go on, but I personally wish to
> rest my case with this message.)
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and
> associated policy work in the manner that it does at present.
>
>
>
>> Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
>> government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this
>> may have been so in some period in the history of human societies
>> but that may evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that
>> such evolution may not necessarily be clean cut but from start
>> but fuzzy and laborious and experimental at the beginning, and
>> that it may be experimented in just one or a few sectors before
>> extending to other domains of governance?
>>
>> I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify
>> public policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority
>> to really enforce them to the extent that those policies are
>> really public. But why public policies cannot be developed by all
>> stakeholders (if that's your position)? And developing policies
>> isn't that part of policymaking?
>>
>> If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role
>> of the government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig,
>> I'm afraid to say that from my understanding of past discussions
>> on this list, that is unlikely to represent a consensus view.
>> Then shall we go back there again?
>>
>> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>>
>> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the
>> decision and complimenting US gov for it, shouldupfront say
>> that we are eager to know more details - especially about (1)
>> whether it means that ICANN would no longer be under any
>> contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
>> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what
>> happens to the issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of
>> ICANN and it being subject to US laws and such and (3)
>> whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN'
>> and if so, of what nature....
>>
>>
>> Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision
>> opened negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders.
>> They were in a position and just announced they are willing to
>> relinquish. As could be expected they want to have a say in or an
>> eye on what will follow (no transition to intergovernmental
>> arrangement plus the fours principles as guidelines.) For the
>> rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition proposal which
>> should include the details of what will follow. So I think apart
>> from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in
>> the announcement, all your questions above can only be answered
>> in the transition proposal to be developed with our participation
>> and that of all other stakeholders.
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation
>> of ICANN, in a manner that takes care of these issues..
>>
>> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance
>> institutions do not have customers, only constituencies and
>> the such...
>>
>> Thanks, parminder
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your
>>> consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first
>>> crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm
>>> cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.
>>>
>>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>>
>>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National
>>> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>>> announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has
>>> played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned
>>> Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>>> functions. As the announcement points out, this marks the
>>> final phase of the transition intended from the inception of
>>> ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system
>>> (DNS) and its stewardship.
>>>
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision
>>> and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an
>>> equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for the
>>> governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a
>>> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the
>>> necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well
>>> as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above
>>> transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to
>>> what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and
>>> expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
>>> services”] We also support the four principles put forward
>>> by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in
>>> the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition.
>>>
>>>
>>> While acknowledging the primary role of Internet
>>> organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC
>>> wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving
>>> due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical
>>> and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
>>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
>>> extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy,
>>> including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in
>>> the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant
>>> challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not
>>> reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is
>>> rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’
>>> meaning.
>>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to
>>> designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that
>>> fits a truly global governance institution – with a
>>> constituency and a customer base that actually is global.
>>> Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be
>>> found to the concern that while achieving effective
>>> accountability such institution (to emerge from this
>>> transition) should not be subject to any one national
>>> jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
>>> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming
>>> NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet
>>> Governance(www.netmundial.br <http://www.netmundial.br>) to
>>> be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in
>>> its consultation process for the transition proposal the
>>> propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes
>>> of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current
>>> role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s
>>> domain name system.
>>>
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>>
>>> March xx, 2014.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/08eae1c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list