[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Fri Feb 6 12:28:24 EST 2015

Inline...

-----Original Message-----
From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:39 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 6 Feb 2015, at 2:06 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good observation David... the issue is that when we were drafting the 
> Delhi Declaration it never occurred to any of us that there would be 
> the full-throated attack on democracy that is now evident as the 
> underlying basis and intent of multi-stakeholderism.  Certainly not 
> one that would come from within Civil Society.

	I do tend the think that the idea that there is a full-throated
attack on democracy from within civil society to be rather hyperbolic.

[MG>] Perhaps a defense of democracy and a serious explanation of how
democracy is compatible with multi-stakeholder decision making from the CS
folks you are referring to would counter my perception that the intention is
to replace democratic governance with multi-stakeholder governance as what
appear to be the foundational MS documents by Tapscott, the WEF and the
Aspen Institute make quite clear.

> In the real world of course, where decisions are being made, the 
> question becomes as you are posing it--do we abandon the democratic 
> principle even though it is not fully realized and is in many cases 
> only aspirational or do we accept that ultimately global decision 
> making will be a mix of democratic values, the national articulation 
> of democratic values and aspirations and national representations of 
> national interests many or most of (the latter
> of) which pay only nominal attention to the democratic aspirations of 
> their people.  That is do we abandon democracy in favour of governance by
elites?

	My answer would start by saying that you have set up a false
dichotomy in your final sentence.
	Setting democracy and deliberative multi-stakeholder consensus based
decision making as in opposition is unhelpful. Instead, ask how can we make
multi-stakeholder processes more democratic. That isnt trivial. For a
start, there is no one simple idea of what it means to be democratic).
	And what does it mean to have governance by elites? There are
significant practical issues to overcome - many internet issues are such
that anyone who has a thorough understanding may be considered part of a
technical elite. And of course there are social mechanisms by which
representative democracy tends to create its own elites.

[MG>] All very useful points and the bases for some equally useful dialogue
and discussion once the normative foundations for the discussion have been
agreed upon.  But as is clear from the current bulk of back and forth on
this list and in other IG venues there is no such agreement on those
normative foundations since the MS proponents present MSism not simply as a
modality of discussion but as a fundamental normative principle for
governmental decision making and one moreover which is presented as a
substitute/alternative for current forms of formal governmental decision
making which at least aspirationally are "democratic".  

> There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some 
> form of democratic and representative structures in place.  The degree 
> to which these are truly democratic and representative (and 
> transparent and
> accountable) varies of course enormously but in many instances they 
> are all that is available and they do provide the on-going opportunity 
> for realizing the aspirations for popular sovereignty in these countries
as others.

	A good question then would be: why do you consistently treat even
massively constrained, subverted/corrupted government processes that
proclaim themselves democratic as somehow having more legitimacy than open,
transparent multi-stakeholder processes?

[MG>] I can respond in one of two ways... either I've already  answered that
question in the above commentary or to carry on this discussion further we
need to have a great deal more time and attention to devote to this than I
have at the moment. However,  I believe that democratic governance has to be
the bedrock and foundation of all systems of governance.  Because some/many
systems don't achieve a desirable degree of democratic
accountability/representivity etc. doesn't mean that we replace that
aspiration rather it means that we redouble efforts to achieve more fully
realized universal democratic accountability.  In the real world where
gender equality is not achieved the response is not to replace that as a
bedrock value by for example "separate but equal" as a normative position.
Again in the real world we may feel the need to tolerate systems where there
is no gender equality and even accept positions espousing "separate but
equal" but that doesn't and shouldn't change our underlying values,
aspirations and action orientations.

	Plenty of nations use the term democracy, and it is astute of you to
notice that maybe some of them are not really terribly democratic (i.e. the
DPRK, despite having democratic right there in the name, really isnt all
that democratic). I realise that, say, sometimes an authoritarian absolute
monarchy that bans elections, political parties, and free speech, but allows
some of its citizens to contend for the right to advise it, is sometimes
all that is available, should you live in the KSA. But this reasoning -
that because their profoundly anti-democratic government is the only thing
available, supporting their primary role in public policy is somehow
supporting democracy, seems extremely stretched. Black is white, war is
peace, an authoritarian absolute monarchy allowing a minority to stand for
election to an advisory council is democracy?

[MG>] Of course that isn't what I said and as above to go into this further
would take much more time than I have currently available. Perhaps ICANN
could divert a bit of the money it currently spends on just the canapes for
its endless stream of "multistakeholder" 5 star hotel self-congratulatory
meetings to support a serious discussion including others than its insider
campfollowers where these kinds of matters could be looked at at length and
in depth. These matters are important and worth discussing but rather too
complex for these kinds of casual interactions.  

> The intent that you seem to be arguing for is to abandon "democratic"
> structures and aspirations in favour of self-directed governance by 
> elites with no effective measures for representivity, transparency or 
> accountability in that governance structure.

	Not at all. My argument is that a very practical method of working
towards more democratic structures in Internet governance is to work towards
increased representativity, transparency, and accountability within the
multi-stakeholder governance structures we have.

[MG>] But first we need to have some sort of clear explanation/definition of
what those MS governance structures actually are... Lists of things that are
called MS governance structures without giving an underlying set of
definitions isn't I think sufficient for various kinds of reasons that might
be gathered under the rubric of "Red Queenism".... terms meaning what I
self-interestedly say they mean   ... Once we have something to point to
that has some degree of commonality and reflects some deeper structures of
commonly recognized and recognizable characteristics that have some degree
of universal applicability (i.e. not another instance of pointing to that
ultimate walled garden, the IEFT) then asking the above question might make
sense particularly if we can agree on a definition of "democracy" and
"democratic governance".

	Frankly, I think we have a fair better chance of pushing
transparency and accountability and representativity within ICANN than we do
of pushing them within existing state based mechanisms for transnational
decision making.
	I mean, ICANN has its problems, but contrast it with mechanisms like
the TPPA or TTIP, and it doesnt look so bad - and I think we can force
transparency and accountability on ICANN far more easily than we can on the
massively subverted international trade processes (and democratic nations
are among the worst offenders here).

[MG>] Frankly I think that pointing to ICANN as an example of anything other
than massive mission over-reach and the principle that too much money
corrupts and too much money without effective accountability corrupts
absolutely doesn't have much resonance with me or most of those in the real
i.e. non-ICANN world. 

> It seems to me that it is you who should be providing an explanation 
> and rationale for the principles of non-democracy and the 
> anti-democratic aspirations and values of multi-stakeholder decision 
> making which go against several thousand years of human history and 
> the values and aspirations of the vast and overwhelming majority of the
global population.

	Oh, please do tell me how multi-stakeholderism is less democratic
than the processes of Athenian city-states or Roman Emperors and other
governance mechanisms of the last few thousand years.
	Do you really think that not wanting to entrench the primary role of
government in Internet governance is against the aspirations of the citizens
of China, because they really want their governments censorship policies to
be more represented on the global stage? That the people on India are
desperate to have government calls for national level censorship given a
stronger voice over the many domestic civil society groups that oppose it?
	Hyberbolic rhetoric doesnt help, but you really do seem to enjoy
it.

[MG>] Please explain to me how misrepresenting an argument in the way that
you have done and as you habitually do in the above and throughout the
course of all your contributions in this electronic space are furthering
reasonable discourse rather than allowing you to score cheap self-serving
"rhetorical" points.

> 
> Finally, I fail to see how the organizational form of the JNC as a 
> free association of its members and supporters or of its individual or 
> organizational supporters is of any relevance in this or any similar 
> discussion.

	Do you apply the same criteria to your other civil society
colleagues? Im certainly over being regularly accused of being part of a
self selected elite. My organisation has a membership of several hundred
people, and I face regular re-election. As part of that elected role, I
participate in civil society processes within ICANN and elsewhere. Am I part
of a self-selected elite?

[MG>] I dont know you or your organization and I'm delighted to hear that
you represent several hundred people... But the issue of self-selection has
to do with broader issues of democracy, accountability, representivity and
governance much beyond you and your associates.  So far as I know the JNC
has never claimed for itself the right to participate as a consensus
participating "stakeholder" in decision making processes which might under
some circumstances impact very large swathes of humanity.

>  If folks of like mind choose to get together to advocate for a 
> particular set of norms and values how does that differ from any other 
> free association in a democratic structure.

	It just contrasts with your frequent rhetorical attacks on your
colleagues.

[MG>] See above

M

	Regards
		David

> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> 
> 
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would
> guess for the JNC.
>> 
>> I, at least, believe in the sovereign right of the people not of 
>> nations (or governments or states

> 
> 	The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis 
> Agenda, which states
> 	 Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the 
> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for 
> international Internet-related public policy issues
> 	And as far as I am aware nothing has changed.
> 
> 	Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from
the 
> JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they 
> support the sovereign right of states over internet policy.
> 
> 
>> In some instances this sovereign right is able to be exercised 
>> through
> the democratic processes governing the actions of nations in other 
> instances (dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not 
> possible.  This latter case doesnt remove the sovereign right of the 
> people nor is it transferred in these instances to the nation, 
> rather these sovereign rights await appropriate means/modalities for a 
> democratic execution.
> 
> 	Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very 
> poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not 
> appear to be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to 
> support the sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic 
> status. And JNC explicitly took this position without support from 
> other civil society participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and
Iran.
> 
>> And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can 
>> start talking simply about elites as the governing structures of 
>> these multi-stakeholder processes 

> 
> 	Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In

> what sense?
> 
>> Of course, these folks are self-selected in their governance role 
>> while
> their being elites derives from their position of power in various 
> economic, political and social structures or as courtiers to those who do.
> 
> 	It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else
of 
> being self-selected as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of 
> members who represent organisations with a very small membership that 
> exist for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance 
> participation.
> 
> 	Regards
> 
> 		Davids
> 
>> M
>> 
>> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
>> Cc: Avri Doria
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> 
>> On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Errr
 yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who 
>> believe in
> and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in 
> the governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder)
elite.
>> 
>> 
>>            JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
> nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, 
> all this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers.
>> 
>>            And of course, we now understand self appointed elite to 
>> be
> JNC speak for those who choose to show up to open fora. The JNC 
> attitude, given the number of decisions it makes without even 
> consulting with civil society colleagues, would seem to be that they 
> should do the appointing. I make no apology for not being very keen on
that.
>> 
>>            David
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri 
>> Doria
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with 
>> one
> voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support 
> multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and 
> those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet 
> public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.
>> 
>> On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most
> fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those 
> other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we 
> made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to 
> influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.  
> While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger 
> issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these
issues.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> thx. for the discussion.
>> 
>> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the
> outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom 
> up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on 
> common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in 
> the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in 
> CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the 
> basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be 
> conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
>> 
>> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to
> reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak 
> seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this 
> "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is 
> united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, 
> access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki 
>> Chango
>> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
>> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>> 
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one 
>> voice" says concretely!
>> 
>> 
>> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced
with.
>> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led 
>> me to state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting 
>> enough, you
>> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just 
>> wasn't the issue implied by my statement.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one 
>> voice.
>> 
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that 
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being 
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right 
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion 
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>> 
>> 
>> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united 
>> voice (you choose your preferred adjective)?
>> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems 
>> to be what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the 
>> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part 
>> is
>> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no 
>> matter how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and 
>> they certainly cannot always
>> do)
>> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and 
>> trust among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>> 
>> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for 
>> IGC to untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>> 
>> Mawaki
>> 
>> 
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent 
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a 
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive 
>> than it would claim to be.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- 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