<div dir="ltr">Hi Norbert,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the response,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Rafik, you are attacking a straw-man position, which has nothing to do<br>
at all with my position or values or the proposal that I included a<br>
link to.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>I was not judging you, that is not my goal.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I am very much in favor of open multistakeholder processes with full<br>
involvement of all interested parties, including the private sector,<br>
for the development of policy proposals, including coordination of<br>
proposals with the goal of minimizing problems when different<br>
countries choose to adopt different public policy options.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>good to hear that you are in support of multistaekholder process, that was not indicated in your first message. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
In my view, the attempt should always be made to reach a full global<br>
multistakeholder consensus. This will not always succeed, but even if<br>
it doesn't succeed, much can be learned through participation in a<br>
well-run multistakeholder consensus process with participants of<br>
diverse backgrounds. Often the result of such a process will not be<br>
consensus but a much improved understanding of where the real problems<br>
are in terms of significantly conflicting interests, and what the<br>
benefits and drawbacks of different possible and justifiable policy<br>
choices are in regard to the legitimate interests of different<br>
stakeholder groups. These insights should then be provided to national<br>
parliaments so that the choice between different public policy<br>
possibilities, each justifiable and right from some perspective, will<br>
be made in a democratic manner, on the basis of the best possible<br>
information.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>again good to see your explanation for supporting the multistakeholder model with such level of details. I responded to your when you were defending the state based model and giving privileges to governments even when you recognise the drawbacks.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In regard to your point about non-democratic states: They obviously<br>
have a totally broken governance system. They obviously violate the<br>
human rights of the people living there. But neither of those points<br>
should be allowed to stop the people living in parts of the world where<br>
the governments are to a significant degree democratic (like is the case<br>
for me) from being allowed to insist that we value democracy, and<br>
we don't want to lose it, even when the line between Internet<br>
governance and traditional areas of governance is becoming more and<br>
more blurred.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>so you don't propose any alternatives for those under authoritarian regimes and want to keep a system silencing them because it may work for you as swiss citizen ? how can this embed the democracy values you are defending?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Rafik</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Rafik <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing<br>
> many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having<br>
> any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having<br>
> role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems<br>
> with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having<br>
> SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match<br>
> democratic values you are mentioning .<br>
><br>
> With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really<br>
> think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really<br>
> representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are<br>
> mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The<br>
> state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the<br>
> world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any<br>
> possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies.<br>
><br>
> Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from<br>
> developing region to participate in such process , but at least I<br>
> have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the<br>
> marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts<br>
> giving more rights to governments than their own citizens.<br>
><br>
> Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are<br>
> defending cannot be improved at all.<br>
><br>
> Rafik<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>> a écrit :<br>
><br>
> > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons.<br>
> ><br>
> > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real<br>
> > danger today.<br>
> ><br>
> > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly<br>
> > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy<br>
> > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine<br>
> > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination.<br>
> ><br>
> > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the<br>
> > legal construct through which this human right is established is<br>
> > via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the<br>
> > peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the<br>
> > document the right to democratic processes is established.<br>
> ><br>
> > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible<br>
> > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want<br>
> > to forsake it before a proven alternative is available.<br>
> ><br>
> > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states.<br>
> > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract<br>
> > anything.<br>
> ><br>
> > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost<br>
> > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as<br>
> > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the<br>
> > various examples of totally non-democratic states here.<br>
> ><br>
> > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as<br>
> > those proposed on <a href="http://wisdomtaskforce.org/" target="_blank">http://wisdomtaskforce.org/</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Greetings,<br>
> > Norbert<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900<br>
> > schrieb Adam Peake <<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>>:<br>
> ><br>
> >> Dear Parminder,<br>
> >><br>
> >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported<br>
> >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration<br>
> >> of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary<br>
> >> in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my<br>
> >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week<br>
> >> in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we<br>
> >> oppose paragraph 35.<br>
> >><br>
> >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of<br>
> >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation<br>
> >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself<br>
> >> with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on<br>
> >> roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript.<br>
> >> You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later<br>
> >> today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Please act immediately.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Thank you,<br>
> >><br>
> >> Adam<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE<br>
> >>>> SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT<br>
> >>>> SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE<br>
> >>>> ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE<br>
> >>>> TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT<br>
> >>>> OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER<br>
> >>>> SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND<br>
> >>>> THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED<br>
> >>>> COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS<br>
> >>>> SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING.<br>
> >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT<br>
> >> WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT<br>
> >> TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS<br>
> >> WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN<br>
> >> GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL<br>
> >> LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER<br>
> >> IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT<br>
> >> PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE<br>
> >> SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE<br>
> >> PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK<br>
> >> ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN<br>
> >> EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT<br>
> >> IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE<br>
> >> SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE<br>
> >> ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES<br>
> >> COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE<br>
> >> THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU.<br>
> >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Tunis Agenda<br>
> >><br>
> >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses<br>
> >> both technical and public policy issues and should involve all<br>
> >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international<br>
> >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy<br>
> >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the<br>
> >> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities<br>
> >> for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The<br>
> >> private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important<br>
> >> role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and<br>
> >> economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important<br>
> >> role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and<br>
> >> should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental<br>
> >> organizations have had, and should continue to have, a<br>
> >> facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public<br>
> >> policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and<br>
> >> should continue to have an important role in the development of<br>
> >> Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> > ____________________________________________________________<br>
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> > <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
> > <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>