<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
On Sunday 27 May 2012 09:14 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:3A35B60F-77FA-4848-A7F7-FBEA10395135@ella.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so politically, is ... vain fantasy of an anarchist ...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">If by anarchist;s fantasy you mean:
The long range goal of those who beleive in bottom-up multistakeholder participatory democracy.
we can talk.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Always happy to talk :). As with Michael, your new formulation
enthuses me, and I am ready to explore its implications. But as Michael
says, we will need to be able to show what it means in its final
formulation, what it means in the present context, what will be the
expected trajectory from the present to the ideal, what are our
political
strategies and tactics (I am reminded I addressed almost exactly the
same
questions to Wolfgang a few days back). There are pressing human
concerns - of life and death - that are involved here, and we need to
actually 'do' what is best to be done....<br>
<br>
For instance, what does one mean when one says that government reps,
civil society reps
and business (well. almost always big business) reps should be
considered on the same/ equal footing for all purposes. How do
decisions ever get taken in such a context? And if decision do not get
taken does it not perpetrate status quo, and work against our
collective notions (in the CS) of a better and fairer society. Even if
a consensus is always needed - which means big business too
should also agree every time - what kind of decisions will ever get
taken. <br>
<br>
Even otherwise, do you really think that in the decision making process
- I am not speaking of pre-decision making processes - a gov rep should
have exactly the same footing
as whoever else happens to be able to get entry into the room... There
are simple direct questions of clear immediate, as well as long term
structural,
relevance. We need to be able to develop a clear stance on such issues
if we are to be taken with any seriousness in the political circles.<br>
<br>
I also will never agree to consider a rep of a company - representing
narrow private interests - to be on equal/ same footing as a civil
society rep, who is supposed to represent wider public interest (even
if often/ sometimes of a sectional variety). No civil society actor,
among those whom we work here in India, and that includes grassroots
level ones, will accept such 'equal footing'. It is simply out of
question!<br>
<br>
Also, we cannot accept to take a 'formal' stand that government reps
are ok to represent the interest of government as different from that
of people. They may do so very often in practice, but this is something
that we will never accept formally as normative. We struggle so much,
internally, in our respective countries, to make sure that our
supposedly democratic government represents the aspiration and
interests of the people. Such struggles are made meaningless if we
accede to such a formal position. (this is why I have always linked the
question of multistakeholderism to the issue of democracy.)<br>
<br>
In any case, if we take the 'equal footing' formula to its practical
application level, as I was discussing earlier, how does it actual
work. Can everyone who walks into the room have an equal role in
decision making. You know this can never work and any such process will
be easily captured. Then, as the only alternative, should there be a
kind of committee that takes decion on behalf of all those outside.
This brings us back to the original problem. Why not 'equal footing'
relationship between those out of the committee/ room and those inside?
Finally, we will have to have some kind of representative governance
structure that will be subject to same accountability and
representativity questions as governments are today, and of course any
such structure contravenes 'equal footing' doctrine for a very large
majority. So, I will like to know, what exactly is meant by the 'equal/
same footing' doctrine of multistakeholderism'. In my view there are
both practical problems and logical fallacies involved in this. <br>
<br>
(On the other hand, we do know what is meant by equality of all people,
as enshrined in our constitutions, and as worked, rather imperfectly,
into our governance system. We should always keep trying to improve
these systems, and make them more democratic, bringing them as close as
possible to the ideal of equality of all people. )<br>
<br>
Different kind of social actors have different roles in governance
systems, and these differences should be acknowledged. There is of
course 'equal footing' for all in an open consultative process, a 'town
hall' situation, but it cannot extent to throughout the governance
system. This is simply a recipe for governance paralysis, which the
'most powerful' want in any case. We cannot afford to play into their
hands. <br>
<br>
There is no doubt that governance systems today are immensely
challenged vis a vis both their performance and representativity. And
we need change. This is especially true for the global governance
system which faces unprecedented contexts and challenges. However, any
blueprint for change must, inter alia, be based on careful assessment
of the different roles of different actors on the political stage.
Multistakeholderism was always a good word here in the South, till it
has started to be used as a cover for corporatism in global and
national politics. We must therefore lay out our understanding of the
different status and role of different actors if we are to make
progress in the direction that you implore us to. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3A35B60F-77FA-4848-A7F7-FBEA10395135@ella.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think your mistake is in not recognizing that achieving multistakeholder participatory democracy is a political goal.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
As per above, I do think it is a worthy political goal to explore, if
we can converge our understanding of what really is meant here. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3A35B60F-77FA-4848-A7F7-FBEA10395135@ella.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">avri
On 27 May 2012, at 11:34, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Bravo, Anriette.
I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless waste of time, energy and resources and at worst
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at clubs of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to a WSIS like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS - the IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions .......
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the future of an unfettered cyberspace.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural and political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social justice. All of these requires greater political work at the global level.
Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design of the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources.
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Bests, Rony Koven
-----Original Message-----
From: Anriette Esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a>
To: governance <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>
Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm
Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings
Dear IGC list
Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last
week's meeting of the CSTD.
The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there
was very little consensus among CSTD members on:
- enhanced cooperation in internet governance
- WSIS + 10
On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is
that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair
(a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the
Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very
short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was
accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not
the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements
are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript.
But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject
for negotations.
On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on
this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and
others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that
assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on
statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human
development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information
society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that
the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business
and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from
their perspective.
Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should
consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the
resolution.
The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant
for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva,
and we don't quite agree.
Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel
very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only
governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe
there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final
assessment should be negotiated between States.
Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his
reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He
can explain them himself.
My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the
idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the
resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed
preparatory process will be available.
I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way
of spending money and time.
But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated
outcomes which will not be in the public interest.
I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot
recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals.
But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different
way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered
throughout.
I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to
'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example:
" 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing
awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by
different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free
software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity
of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet
their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered
as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society.
28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for
all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of
scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives
for scientific publishing."
If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely,
be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another
over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of
the companies they are close to.
Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus
our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming
partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as
possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives
governments equal participation without giving any single one of them
control. And, another example is for us to use existing international
and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and
privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these
rights.
The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power
and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own
interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new
intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA
being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly.
We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be
spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy
spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and
rights protection.
This is all work that can be done NOW.
Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the
IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of
internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good.
If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week -
in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of
some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more
precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of
expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public
interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement
will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common
denominator interests among sparring governments.
Anriette
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
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="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
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>
</body>
</html>