<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 08 March 2014 12:02 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<blockquote cite="mid:53199B28.2090701@apc.org" type="cite"><font
face="Arial">SNIP<br>
<br>
He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a
multi-stakeholder body that can make certain types of
policies. Members of CGI.br on these lists can give examples.<br>
<br>
CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature)
body that is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain
types of public policies, as well as make recommendations for
public policies.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Arial">I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br
having made a public policy. Can you offer one.. then we will
know what exactly are we discussing here.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
education policy making, and so on...<br>
<br>
If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the
'difference'? <br>
<br>
Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet
may be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough
basis for multistakeholder policy making in the education sector at
the national level? Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy
making that we are embracing here.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Arial"> <br>
Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
authority and delegated authority. These are concepts and ideas
that are rather well worked out in the texts of political
science and public administration.<br>
<br>
A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives
in democracies. It cannot</font><font face="Arial">, for
instance</font><font face="Arial">, be exercised by business
representatives .<br>
<br>
(At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
manner whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
enforcement elements, the manner of their national application
remain in a somewhat complex interplay with national political
systems. But this system of global public policies still works.)<br>
<br>
As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake
public policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments. <br>
<br>
There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
definitions regarding public policy etc and then find entry
points for big business to exercise formal political power.....
Once such a role is established on some areas, then this power
migrates upwards to cover all areas of our social and political
existence. This is what is happening now. <br>
<br>
Do note that the currently fashionable meme of 'equal footing'
in public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas
where big business can thus exercise formal political power, and
where it cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for
instance the one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of
Internet policies at the global level. Soon, it will be areas of
policy in any sector at the global level. Such efforts are of
course already afoot. And then gradually this models is brought
to the national levels. <br>
<br>
I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge
into a neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking,
and in fact contributing so strongly to... <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:53199B28.2090701@apc.org" type="cite"><font
face="Arial"> <br>
Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite
formal, but it is multi-stakeholder.<br>
<br>
Government has more positions which is something I have heard
some Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it
does mean that different parts of government is represented
which his important. Business is represented through industry
bodies, and so on.<br>
<br>
It is an example of how governance processes can change, and
how public policy making can be more inclusive and
multi-stakeholder and go beyond the traditional 'government
proposes policy - with or without public consulation, follwed
by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.<br>
<br>
From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where
it does. But we should also propose and promote new models
where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana">Joy<br>
<br>
You clarify the difference between two positions very well..<br>
<br>
So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil
society statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements
hold that non-gov participants</font><font face="Verdana">(which
includes business)</font><font face="Verdana"> should be on
the same footing as gov participants in terms of actually <i><b>making
public </b></i><i><b>policies</b></i><i><b>.<br>
<br>
</b></i>Fine. There is no room for confusion now.<br>
<br>
I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it
as ever.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, look forward to see actual models of such policy
making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
accompanying statements.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts
it. And Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the
steering committee on BB... I hope such mis-statements are
avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks. <br>
<br>
<i><b><br>
</b></i></font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25
PM, joy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5318460E.7080301@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC
Charter the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:<br>
<blockquote>Internet governance should be multilateral and
democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the
private sector, civil society and international
organisations. No single government should have a
pre-eminent role in relation to international internet
governance.<br>
</blockquote>
This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
processes are not democratic or desirable. Quite the
contrary and APC has been on record in many spaces to
support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one
form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits
submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken
together, certain principles relevant to internet governance
can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial,
including human rights.<br>
<br>
I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its
2 recommendations are simple, concise and helpful.<br>
<br>
It seems the logic of the objections being raised to
endorsing the Best Bits submission is along the lines that
on the one hand:<br>
a) governments alone make public policy including some which
is relevant to internet governance<br>
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other
when doing so; and <br>
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments
this role (though they can of course be involved/consulted)
.<br>
<br>
Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the
lines that <br>
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public
policy which is relevant to internet governance<br>
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable
footing or parity with each other when doing so; <br>
<br>
Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits
submission which simply proposes that whatever internet
governance principles NetMundial is considering, equitable
multi-stakholder participation and human rights (among
others) are relevant to them. <br>
<br>
<br>
Joy<br>
Joy<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m.,
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53182E74.5060401@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Arial">Dear all<br>
<br>
Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights
Charter and the use of 'multilateral'.<br>
<br>
</font>The full text in Theme 6.1 is:<br>
<br>
"Internet governance should be multilateral and
democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the
private sector, civil society and international
organisations. No single government should have a
pre-eminent role in relation to international internet
governance."<br>
<br>
When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple
parties and multiple countries. We did not mean it in the
'intergovernmental' sense.<br>
<br>
In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and
democratic defines how we understood the term: "with the
full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
society and international organisations. No single
government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to
international internet governance."<br>
<br>
Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001)
the term multilateral has become loaded and is often
underestood as meaning "among governments". It was not our
intention to suggest that. But we certainly did mean that
governments should be involved, and that no one government
should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of
other stakeholders too.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/03/2014 14:29,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 05 March 2014
05:19 PM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53170F61.60305@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 05 March
2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"
style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size:
12px; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">And of
course, the proposed view to be submitted on
1Net's behalf has this all important
principle, "Decisions made with respect to
Internet governance should only be made by
bodies that allow free and equitable access to
all stakeholders at all points in the
decision-making process." Well of course. Two
hoots to democracy!<br>
<br>
Now I shall come to the point, of my comments
on the proposed submission to NetMundial
submitted by Jeremy.<br>
<br>
I of course support and commend both APC
Principles and IRP Principles - which seem
the main burden of the submission.... BUT...<br>
<i><b><br>
</b></i><i><b>Can someone explain me the
meaning of "equitable multistakeholder
participation"</b></i><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and
whether it is different from what is meant in
the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so,
how.... More precisely, are you seeking that
all stakeholders, including business reps,
have equal part and role (as gov reps) in
making decisions about public policies. Please
address this point specifically.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, you picked up on a key point. There was
a discussion of this on the pad where the text
was workshopped, which you can read for
yourself: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles">https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles</a>.
At various times it was "parity" and "power
sharing" before it became "equitable
participation", which is somewhat flexible, to
accommodate the different viewpoints that we all
have about how equal the stakeholder roles
should be.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
non-democracy. <br>
<br>
So, request a clear response - do you mean <i><b>parity</b></i>
in <i><b>decision making</b></i> about <i><b>public
policies </b></i>between gov and non gov
actors.... </blockquote>
<br>
<br>
It is important to note that the two main Principles
docs that this CS contribution refers to speak of
democracy but not multistakeholder governance, much less
'equitable MSism'..<br>
<br>
In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "<font
face="sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt"
size="3">The right to multilateral democratic
oversight of the Internet. Internet governance</font></font><font
face="sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt"
size="3"> should be multilateral and democratic.</font></font>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>"<br>
<br>
Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in
this present submission - equitable multistakeholder
participation - does not come from the 2 key docs which
are claimed to be the principle inspirations.<br>
<br>
Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are
also quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br
Principles, CoE principles, and G 8 principles....<br>
<br>
In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly
and emphatically speak of democracy, the MS
(multistakeholder) term either does not figure (CGI.Br
doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to
democracy (the other two docs)<br>
<br>
Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by
civil society actors in IG space - come up with .....<br>
<br>
There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or
'democratic' in this doc.... Even when you guys came up
with "key governance characteristics" you could think
only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity,
accountability, and <i><b>equitable multistakeholder
participation </b></i>" (emphasis added)<br>
<br>
In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations,
did the word 'democracy' not occur to any one at all...
Or did it occur to someone and was contributed but did
not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is
worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from
this doc. <br>
<br>
And I appeal also to others who really believe in
democracy not to get caught in this trap that is laid
for them.... This is the thin end of the wedge, which
will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic
world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It
is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the
neolib order. <br>
<br>
See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases
like equitable multistakeholder participation (further
explained in the emerging contribution from 1 Net -
principle 11 in the survey) are getting introduced as
basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches
what some of us predicted is the prime objective at
present of the US supported status quoists to get into
the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of
piece.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:53170F61.60305@itforchange.net"
type="cite">And this is not a petty point... Half of
the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of
discussion. This is the single most important point
today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this
point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what
is the key point, and not skirt it...<br>
<br>
BTW, the German government has the following to say in
its submission to NetMundial<br>
<br>
"Democratically elected governments, as the
representative of the people, possess public authority
including internet-related public policy issues and
are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and
democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect
and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
is respected and that relevant national legislation
complies with their obligations under international
law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the
appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as
a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment
and credibility, especially at community level. The
private sector and particularly the technical
community significantly influence and encourage the
development, distribution and accessibility of the
internet, and should continue to do so. In order to
fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
innovation, freedom of expression, access to
information and ideas and democratic participation in
a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to
work together."<br>
<br>
Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or
NOT...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div apple-content-edited="true">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: Helvetica; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: Helvetica; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate;
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:
Helvetica; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; border-spacing:
0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect:
none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
<div style="font-size: 12px;
text-align: -webkit-auto; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate;
border-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;">
<div>--</div>
<div>Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB
(Hons) B Com</div>
<div>Internet lawyer, ICT policy
advocate, geek</div>
<div>host -t NAPTR
5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://e164.org">e164.org</a>|awk
-F! '{print $3}'</div>
</div>
</span><br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
WARNING: This email has not been
encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable encryption at
your end. For instructions, see <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://jere.my/l/pgp">http://jere.my/l/pgp</a>.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>