<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.95pt;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Very good question Norbert and I well accept your cases and I don't have any easy answers (but nor I think, does anyone else…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Two things though, I know for sure that governance by self-appointed, essentially unaccountable "stakeholders" is not "democracy" at least by any definition I understand, and also that we probably need to have some sort of collective rethinking/redefinition of what we do mean by democracy in an age of instantaneous and essentially free and massified communication and information, the capacity for borderless (and defenseless) action at a distance, mass literacy, and other manifestations of the technologically transformed world that has emerged and would be completely unrecognizable to the conceptualizers of representative democracy in the 18th and 19th century.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Issues of scale and unit (macro and micro the neighborhood, the tribe, the province, the nation, the world); issues of accountability and transparency (increased opportunity for and increased means to avoid), issues of efficacy (personal, collective, associative) and a wide range of others need to be accounted for and I think "we" as a species have only just started that rethinking process…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>In the meantime abandoning something that we do know and understand and have some experience with for leaps in the dark seems to me to be a not very useful place to begin.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Norbert Klein<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 01, 2012 10:08 AM<br><b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Principles<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>Interesting and important.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>My question relates to this part: “the degree to which such processes could at all be called ``democratic`` at least within any definition of the term that I (or I would expect most of us) would understand.”<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>There is an assumption what “most of us” would expect – but it is not defined.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>So I assume – maybe wrongly? - it is a kind of “one man (or woman) one vote”? If not – so what? Please elaborate.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>This surely was a good principle – it was used a lot arguing, for example, against the South African Apartheid regime which rejected it.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>Was it a triumph of democracy when the National Socialists<b> (</b>the<b> “Na</b>tionalso<b>zi</b>alisten<b>” = Nazi”),</b> with the help of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_National_People%27s_Party"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>German National People's Party</span></a>, were victorious in elections in March 1933 – starting a dark age of German history, tremendous damage on many others too.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>“Demo-cracy” hints at a concept that the will of the people governs. But how?<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>The Cambodian People's Party has gained more and more seats in the National Assembly through every vote since 1993 – but the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia has raised serious concerns because the electoral system – especially the National Election Committee – is controlled by government appointees, NOT representing the plurality of parties in the National Assembly. And thousands and thousands of people forcefully evicted from their traditional areas of residency have not only lost their homes, but they are no longer on residency related voter lists.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>Is the one-country-one-vote - on the UN level – more democratic, where 14 million Cambodia have the same vote-weight as 235+ million of Indonesia? <o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>The question is not only: What is democratic? – In the actual situations where we live it means also: How do we move towards the good goal that “the people's” benefits (not the majority of the people who voted in the Nazis in Germany, I add, without offering at the same time a rationale for my personal opinion here) are central?<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>It is on this background that I well understand the short statement (which is open to misunderstandings) about Internet Governance:<o:p></o:p></p><pre>“Multistakeholderism <b>*IS*</b> the highest form of participatory democracy”<o:p></o:p></pre><p style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>If it is not – so what else, and how?<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>Norbert Klein<br>Phnom Penh/Cambodia<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>=<br><br>On 10/1/2012 7:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Wolfgang and all,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I`ve just had an opportunity to observe at somewhat close hand a series of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>multi-stakeholder processes at work (in Agriculture planning) in several<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>African countries... I was quite impressed for a number of reasons which I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>won`t go into here (I`m currently working on the report...<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>However, one conclusion that I would draw is that while<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>`multi-stakeholderism` is in at least some instances very effective as an<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>inclusive, let`s say `participative` management tool it is very far from<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>what I, or I think almost anyone would call ``democratic`` (unless, as in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>some I think, quite perverse instances, one chooses to conflate the notions<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of management with democracy).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The problem is that while multi-stakeholderism is inclusive of interests it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is not necessarily accountable or representative of or for those interests.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>So for example, while a national or reagional farmers` union might be a very<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>effective stakeholder representative of the interests of small holder<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>farmers the precise process of accountability and representivity is in many<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>instances a very open question subject to for example, the personailities of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>individuals, literacy, access to media and information, political<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>interference etc. etc. The latter caveats do not preclude the former<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>affirmations but they do strongly bracket the degree to which such processes<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>could at all be called ``democratic`` at least within any definition of the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>term that I (or I would expect most of us) would understand.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I think your broad objective of pursuing a framework for multi-stakeholder<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>governance of the Internet is a worthwhile one and one I hope to contribute<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to in Baku, however, I think a useful outcome of that initiative would still<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>leave open the question of overall democractic governance and accountability<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of the Internet.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Best,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Mike<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>