<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I am always open to optimism of the will and pessimism of the
intellect (ok I try...often unsuccesfully)...<br>
<br>
The contextual issues in MSG at IGF are missing from the commodious
term democracy (of which there are many)... let me put it blunty
from a CIR perspective... we have a non-binding IGF with MSG but are
effectively precluded from discussing CIR in large order... one
would have expected a non-binding inclusive process to be just the
opposite... perhaps more work is needed with some guidance from
critics otherwise we just a half glass full while others drink up
the water while we are not looking... <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/10/01 05:07 PM, Norbert Klein
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5069A3AF.7060500@gmx.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Interesting and important.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">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.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">There is an assumption what “most
of us” would expect – but it is not defined.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">So I assume – maybe wrongly? - it
is a kind of “one man (or woman) one vote”? If not – so what?
Please elaborate.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">This surely was a good principle –
it was used a lot arguing, for example, against the South
African Apartheid regime which rejected it.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span style="font-weight: normal">Was
it
a triumph of democracy when the National Socialists</span><b>
(</b><span style="font-weight: normal">the</span><b> “Na</b><span
style="font-weight: normal">tionalso</span><b>zi</b><span
style="font-weight: normal">alisten</span><b>” = Nazi”),</b><span
style="font-weight: normal"> with the help of the </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_National_People%27s_Party"><font
color="#000000"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span
style="font-weight: normal">German National People's
Party</span></span></font></a><span
style="font-weight: normal">, </span><span
style="font-weight: normal">were victorious in elections in</span><span
style="font-weight: normal"> March 1933 –</span><span
style="font-weight: normal"> starting a dark age of German
history, </span><span style="font-weight: normal">tremendous
damage on many others too</span><span style="font-weight:
normal">.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">“<span style="font-weight: normal">Demo-cracy”
hints
at a concept that the will of the people governs. But how?</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span style="font-weight: normal">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 </span><span style="font-weight: normal">has
raised serious concerns </span><span style="font-weight:
normal">because</span><span style="font-weight: normal"> 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.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span style="font-weight: normal">Is
the one-country-one-vote - on the UN level – more
democratic, where </span><span style="font-weight: normal">14
million </span><span style="font-weight: normal">Cambodia
ha</span><span style="font-weight: normal">ve</span><span
style="font-weight: normal"> the same vote-weight as </span><span
style="font-weight: normal">235+ million of </span><span
style="font-weight: normal">Ind</span><span
style="font-weight: normal">onesia</span><span
style="font-weight: normal">? </span> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span style="font-weight: normal">The
question
is not only: What is democratic? – </span><span
style="font-weight: normal">I</span><span
style="font-weight: normal">n the actual situations where we
liv</span><span style="font-weight: normal">e it means</span><span
style="font-weight: normal"> also: </span><span
style="font-weight: normal">H</span><span
style="font-weight: normal">ow do we move towards the good
goal </span><span style="font-weight: normal">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 </span><span
style="font-weight: normal">central</span><span
style="font-weight: normal">?</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span style="font-weight: normal">It
is on this background that I well understand </span><span
style="font-weight: normal">the</span><span
style="font-weight: normal"> short statement (which is open
to misunderstandings</span><span style="font-weight: normal">)
about Internet Governance</span><span style="font-weight:
normal">:</span></p>
<pre class="western">“<span style="font-weight: normal">Multistakeholderism </span><b>*IS*</b><span style="font-weight: normal"> the highest form of participatory democracy”</span></pre>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span style="font-weight: normal">If
it is not – so what else, and how?<br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span style="font-weight: normal"><br>
Norbert Klein<br>
Phnom Penh/Cambodia<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.6 (Windows)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
PRE.cjk { font-family: "NSimSun", monospace }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>=<br>
<br>
On 10/1/2012 7:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:04e201cd9fd4$93de6080$bb9b2180$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Wolfgang and all,
I`ve just had an opportunity to observe at somewhat close hand a series of
multi-stakeholder processes at work (in Agriculture planning) in several
African countries... I was quite impressed for a number of reasons which I
won`t go into here (I`m currently working on the report...
However, one conclusion that I would draw is that while
`multi-stakeholderism` is in at least some instances very effective as an
inclusive, let`s say `participative` management tool it is very far from
what I, or I think almost anyone would call ``democratic`` (unless, as in
some I think, quite perverse instances, one chooses to conflate the notions
of management with democracy).
The problem is that while multi-stakeholderism is inclusive of interests it
is not necessarily accountable or representative of or for those interests.
So for example, while a national or reagional farmers` union might be a very
effective stakeholder representative of the interests of small holder
farmers the precise process of accountability and representivity is in many
instances a very open question subject to for example, the personailities of
individuals, literacy, access to media and information, political
interference etc. etc. The latter caveats do not preclude the former
affirmations but they do strongly bracket 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.
I think your broad objective of pursuing a framework for multi-stakeholder
governance of the Internet is a worthwhile one and one I hope to contribute
to in Baku, however, I think a useful outcome of that initiative would still
leave open the question of overall democractic governance and accountability
of the Internet.
Best,
Mike</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>