[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
JFC Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Sun Mar 8 10:47:24 EDT 2015
JCN for JNC. Let JFC add something ...
The universe is pancratic. You cannot change
that. It is a network of networked stand-alone
quantum processes that together compute the huge
Evolution number. Some there are degrading
(entropy) some others are improving things
(negentropy). The computation proceeds as fractal
multi-level multi-interaction system of
monolectic action atoms, which in turn result (ny
enaction atoms) in reaction atoms.
These actions/(enacton)/reactions triples are
chained (catena-ted) in logic (linear) sequences
which dialectically interact/react to permit end
to end routes within the general market (agora)
polylectic cloud, with the result of flows and
ebbs (that an higher conceptualisation layer you
will accept as a "Y/N" or "0 1)..
Sometimes there are agoric conflicts that are
solved by self-organizied criticality (SOC:
earthbreaks, avalanches,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality).
This is the way things work for 15 billions
years. Man has got the idea to prevent these
"catatrophes" (the correct mathematical word)
from happening - individually first, then in
group, now at humanity level. This has led to
monocracy. Then, on the Athens agora, to
democracy. in using the "yes/no" vote. Today the
Athens agora extends to the entire world, through digitality.
This is because we discovered that the world is
digital, i.e. made of "yes/no" or "0 1". It is
digital, i.e.discrete at the "atomic" level
(actually "fractal level" as any filter size will
do). It is our digital brain's perception that
filters fractality, making us believe in the
virtuallity that the world would be continuous.
The deeper you go the smallest is the atom, the
infinitly small is real/virtual who knows? It is
numeric: billions of figures after the dot are
intellectually possible. Between two Euclide's
point there is an infinity of dots. Between two
pixel there is nothing. Yet it works!
The real universe is the realm of discrete
mathematics
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics),
while our spiritual universe is the realm of
continuous mathematics. The bridge between them
can be searched in the graph theory, i.e. the
catenet science, the networks of networks.
This is where we are. And this is more complex
than democracy because polylectic agorics is open
and multidimentional while linear dialectic logic
is closed: there decisions are simple "Y/N"
forks. In agorics there can be an accepted
"middle". Actually, the agoric concept of
"network of networks where travel datagrams"
supports a different set of laws (of complexity)
than the Laws of Thoughs
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought).
Edgar Morin and many others have already
considered a "few" things in that area.
Right now, the more pancratic governance style we
can think of (Machiavelli,Spinoza) is a
multitude's (people without a social contract
with a sovereignty) omnistakeholder approach
which is the way the network of networks actually
work. The temptation of a "backbone cabal"
(multistakeholder) is always here. Experts know
better what is good for you (Dave Farber's
mailing list quotes
http://gmufourthestate.com/2015/03/03/less-democracy-better-government-says-mason-professor/)
jfc
At 09:35 08/03/2015, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>Dear Tarakiyee,
>
>Thanks for sharing your reflection, though I see
>a few ideas that are not fitting history and reality
>
>"ill-formed..." Well democracy as a concept is
>not ill-formed at all. Its implementation varies
>a lot from one place, one people, one climate.
>But as a clear concept of governance, in
>particular when it comes to public policy making, it is most clear-formed.
>
>"The Internet is not flat, power and control is
>concentrated..." Hopefully we all agree on this.
>
>"Multiple stakeholders exists; it's not some
>wishful invention, and it's the interactions of
>these multistakeholders that has governed the Internet so far..."
> > To be honest, Internet wasn't born of
> multistaholderism. The computer scientists were
> certainly competing in an open fashion (sharing
> their ideas even though they might disagree on
> what would be the best solution to move
> forward). Some very few of them would put
> intellectual rights on their discovery, coding,
> ideas, some could not, some would not. Then
> technicians joined in, playing their speedy
> rough consensus to twist their impatience of to
> get things working. Multistakeholderistic
> approach is an ill-formed narrative that has
> appeared by the very late nineties, probably
> along the replacement of the academic driving
> (governing) forces by the ill-formed ICANN.
> Since then, this boutique has abusively been a
> screen smoke that, on behalf of the US
> department of commerce, and other USG bodies,
> including the White House has pretty well
> managed to make sure that nothing was able to
> change. Very little has changed since the
> mid-nineties as related to Internet, and the US
> concept of a new global domination by digital
> means. More concentration has emerged into the
> hands of a Web giant such as Google (born the
> same year as ICANN). Of course Google is not
> directly an Internet thing (more of a web) but
> thanks to its cash machinery, it has
> accelerated this US re-colonization of the
> world, killing the media (who cares?), buying
> its own commercial peace, twisting national
> laws, ignoring them, avoiding to pay tax
> everywhere it can, but more importantly gaining
> power within the Internet scheme of governance
> (how many Google employees are part of the
> IETF, IAB, ISOC, ICANN boards and their many
> many workshops, committees, commissions?). The
> asymmetry, and its unfairness, dates from the
> mid-nineties. Civil society since then, have
> achieved relatively little, if we take the US
> where is located most of the Internet power.
> Even lately Obama expressed a view, that after
> all, that was most consistent with the fact
> that the US had given birth to this wonder, so
> why not to admit it, and play according to the
> US rulers?) We are greatly far away from a
> global transnational democratic system. No need
> to remind you, or anyone, about the dark side
> of that power, its mass surveillance program,
> its diverse monopoles (CISCO for routers,
> Google for search, ICANN for creating TLDs, Verisign...)
>
> > The interactions of these multistakeholders
> are most difficult to see or embrace as a sane
> activity. The difficulty to express a different
> opinion, view, idea is undeniable; if you do
> not agree with the "rough consensus,
> status-quo, decentralized, captured (single and
> open) Internet" then you are a pariah.
>
> > If as you believe, multistakeholderism has
> made the Internet governance as it is today, a
> non democratic system as we know it, how can we
> trust it to make it democratic the next day?
> Why if it is supposed to lead us toward more
> democratic governance, did the US government
> and some CS groupies constantly refuse the word
> "democratic" to appear in a non binding
> statement at UNESCO? Should we then admit that
> in San Paulo, the Net Mundial final statement
> which contained the word "democratic" was
> nothing less than a mistake? Why a mistake, if
> you believe multistakeholderism is supposed to
> lead us in that direction, but with fierce
> opposition to it? Why the Netmundial summit
> transformed itself in a corporations-led
> initiative? Was this odd switch taking the
> right direction, toward a more democratic governance?
>
> > If you are able to sleep over your
> disappointment to see that this simple word is
> not part of CS fundamental
> demands/requests/fights, then what's your
> expectation in terms of transforming the
> current asymmetry? Let it be and sleep well?
> The Jeanettes, Anriettes, Malcolms, are
> welcoming the small victories they seem to see
> over the last ten years? Can someone point us
> the list of these victories, and how it has
> affected the life of people with and without
> access to Internet? "We prefer a text than no
> text are they telling us." But what's the use
> of accumulating losses and defeats in such a
> brilliant and constant manner? Where are these
> many statements lead us in concrete terms? When
> they should side with JNC position, they side
> with US diplomats, opposing any single concrete
> advancement to rebalance the asymmetry.
>
>We are about one year away from the NetMundial
>final statement: can someone tell us what has
>changed since Rousseff speech at the UN, since
>Chehade visited her to soften her views and kill
>her demand for a fair Internet governance?
>Nnenna is still having nice dreams, endorsed by
>sweet +1, as other CS are sleeping well.
>
>Who gives a dam about democratic principals in
>the digital space? I do, and I am happy to share
>this concern with other JNC participants, and
>tomorrow with civil society participating in the
>Internet Social Forum. I also believe that from
>APC to other CS groupings, it could be positive
>to look for common grounds, instead of trying to
>constantly distort JNC's point of view and ideas
>because it would be too disruptive, or simply
>challenging the status quo. JNC has no problem
>to work with others - JNC itself is a very large
>setting containing different views and
>reflections from all over the world - but this
>should be made in an honest fashion.
>
>Honesty and trust within CS. Let's get ride of
>the money corrupting it. Let's get back to true CS work.
>
>JC
>
>
>
>Le 7 mars 2015 à 23:07, Tarakiyee a écrit :
>
>>Dear all,
>>
>>"ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any
>>consistent definition either in theory or in practice," is exactly how
>>some people from my country would describe their experience with
>>democracy. We live in a complex world, perhaps even as complex as the
>>Internet we are discussing how best it be governed.
>>
>>Intersecting systems of oppression such as colonialism, patriarchy,
>>classism and supremecy, mean that any particapatory decision making
>>model would favour some over others. Likewise, the internet is not
>>flat, power and control is concentrated in some places more than the
>>others, such as corporates, governmental agencies, quasi-govermental
>>entities and multi-lateral agencies.
>>
>>Multiple stakeholders exist, it's not some wishful invention, and it's
>>the interactions of these multistakholders that has governed the
>>internet so far. If it wasn't for the hard work of civil society,
>>there would have been little or no transperancy, no marginalised
>>voices, and possibly a lot of elitism. If this is the supposed goal of
>>the so called "MS proponents" as outlined in the thread above, then
>>the status quo was already much better than whatever "they" would hope
>>to achieve.
>>
>>Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many
>>others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders
>>become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that
>>context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for
>>multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve
>>inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.
>>
>>Am I disappointed to see the word "democratic" not included in the
>>outcome document? I am, but I won't lose any sleep over it. There is
>>so much more to take out of the outcome document in order to develop
>>an equal, just and democratic internet. It certainly won't be easy to
>>do so, but on the other hand, commitment to democracy in IG also won't
>>hinge on one document or two.
>>
>>That is of course not meant to minimize the importance of these
>>discussions and concerns, I only mean to point to the other equally
>>important battles being fought. A strong, principled, and nuanced
>>approach in engagement with a variety of actors is the strongest tool
>>we have. A constantly adverserial position can be disadvantagous and
>>draining, especially if it makes us lose sight of gains we achieve.
>>
>>Tarakiyee
>>
>>Views here are my own.
>>
>>
>>On 07/03/15 21:08, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>Wolfgang,
>>>
>>>The issues that you mention of interest to CS are of course
>>>important and should be addressed by CS in all cases, but there is
>>>also the overall necessity to ensure that the broad framework of
>>>decision making and the normative structures which underlie this
>>>are supportive of the general good (including of course, civil
>>>society).
>>>
>>>The problem is that in the MS model there is no one to protect the
>>>public interest... as was quite evident in this UNESCO instance
>>>where the entire process seems to have been captured by MSists from
>>>the very beginning (surely a framing in terms of democratic values
>>>and social justice is a minimum expectation).
>>>
>>>As I think is quite evident in this particular instance as with
>>>others where a MS approach is allowed to frame the discussion, it
>>>is not clear at all that the general good is being or will be
>>>pursued.
>>>
>>>M
>>>
>>>-----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>>>[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: March
>>>7, 2015 9:37 AM To:
>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael
>>>Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang;
>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best
>>>Bits Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>>Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>
>>>This discussion is bizarr.
>>>
>>>Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
>>>infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education,
>>>capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can
>>>achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other
>>>stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is
>>>involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil
>>>society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder
>>>approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision
>>>making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community
>>>level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>>
>>>Wolfgang
>>>
>>>BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with
>>>paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the
>>>light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making
>>>procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and
>>>responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy
>>>issues". The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive
>>>rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states
>>>(and their governments) have to "share decision making" on
>>>"Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders.
>>>This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have
>>>to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference
>>>offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is
>>>needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the
>>>understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet"
>>>but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize
>>>democracy in the context of the Internet something with which I
>>>(and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been advocating
>>>for a long time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed
>>>consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least
>>>based on my quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department,
>>>sufficient comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr.
>>>Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State
>>>Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy.
>>>Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to
>>>"force" it into international documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for
>>>multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates
>>>acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context
>>>and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in
>>>practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang
>>>(<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>[mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>>To:
>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
>>>Michael Gurstein Subject: Re:
>>>[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
>>>"Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of
>>>democratic governance and a holistic approach to human rights
>>>although not as an alternative to multistakeholderism, the
>>>potential of which in my view still needs to be developed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to
>>>include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept
>>>supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively
>>>in the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the
>>>UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the
>>>concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware
>>>that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at
>>>all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these
>>>discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values,
>>>but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a
>>>lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic
>>>Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the
>>>Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for
>>>a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the
>>>context of the internet among civil society and academia first
>>>before forcing it into international documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>>><<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>>><mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't
>>>>simply a
>>>
>>>>matter of the concept "not making it into the final document"
>>>>but
>>>
>>>>rather that those involved made the clear political choice to
>>>>promote
>>>
>>>>"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>>
>>>
>>>>M
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>>From:
>>>><<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>
>>>>[
>>>><<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>>>Klein
>>>
>>>>Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>>
>>>>To:
>>>><<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>>>Ceremony
>>>
>>>>of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>>>
>>>>(
>>>><<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>>>><mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference
>>>>>Connecting the
>>>
>>>>>dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is
>>>>>important to
>>>
>>>>>put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was
>>>>>to
>>>
>>>>>give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on
>>>>>the
>>>
>>>>>future priorities in this field. This was done in several
>>>>>plenary and
>>>
>>>>>16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>
>>>>>The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it
>>>>>into the
>>>
>>>>>outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all
>>>>>work in
>>>
>>>>>progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>>>>>partly
>>>
>>>>>included. I also do not remember that these concepts were
>>>>>elaborated
>>>
>>>>>on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in
>>>>>order to
>>>
>>>>>deepen their understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>
>>>
>>>>thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>>>
>>>>formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>>only
>>>
>>>>partly included."
>>>
>>>
>>>>I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a
>>>>similar
>>>
>>>>importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I
>>>>would
>>>
>>>>appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference,
>>>>could
>>>
>>>>share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
>>>>only
>>>
>>>>partially, included.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>>
>>>>Norbert Klein
>>>
>>>>Cambodia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________ You
>>>received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>To edit your profile and
>>>to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>Translate this email:
>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>
>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>
>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email:
>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
More information about the Governance
mailing list