<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div>
Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>"Multistakeholderism" has been such a huge "black box" so far, notwithstanding some of us being comfortable with the notion and not finding any issue to contend with, and I'm afraid "equal footing" might just be yet such another black box we need to disentangle or unbundle. So I hear what Ian is saying and I don't think it would necessarily miss the concerns raised by Parminder, as we may put forward some alternate formulation -- such as a definition in extension -- to spell out our meaning and a working definition of those terms (and stating explicitly that such substitution is eaxctly what we're trying to achieve.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Frankly, the phrase "equal footing" has not helped us that much in our deliberations. We often talk about human beings being equal, but it seems to me what we mean is that we all should be recognized equal dignity and be treated equally (as all of us being humans) and equitably (esp. when external resources or privileges are involved), regardless of their gender, the color of their skin, how/who they worship, or who they love, etc (as long as the positive rights of others are not infringed upon.) That doesn't mean we're exactly the same, or that we have the exact same skill set and same capacities, and as a result, that we are interchangeable in any position. We still have different skill sets, different capabilities (and opportunities, for that matter because not all opportunities are dictated by state regulation) and play different roles in the society but we just no longer assign these roles dogmatically to people based on, say, their biology. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I know some of you think: Yeah, giving governments such exclusive role in policy-making precisely is a dogma. That may well be so, but that is what we have to work with until such time comes where the world will be such a different place (meaning where we would have managed to reorganized the world order) so that a bunch of individuals who did not run for public office in any given jurisdiction and who call themselves (global) civil society will find the formula for a globally recognized legitimacy to sit at the table, hold the pen and sign international or global multistakeholder agreements to be binding to all stakeholders/parties including states, cast the vote for the ratification of such agreements and finally see through to their enforcement. For let's not forget that the possibility of an international order, including through the use of international legal instruments, is based on a mutual recognition of nation-states and an acceptance of ways they should deal with each other and address their shared concerns. As such, intergovernmental organizations still have a long way to go and they are entitled to their own and proper procedures for decision- and policy-making.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One may be tempted to say, we shouldn't bother with that because it is a state-centric designed system anyway and as such they are not meant to take the best interest of the people at heart. All what I say to that is, this is currently the way to (international) legality or any other form of binding decision-making that will involve and commit governments. We have to start there and try to evolve the system, or start a revolution. (I do understand there is such thing as "soft law" but it seems to me there would be a silent contradiction into advocating for soft law as the way to make collective decisions for the Internet and then spend so much energy advocating for the need for civil society to have the exact same formal role than governments.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>As a result of the above, following is an outline of what "equal footing" means to me. </div><div><br></div><div>- That all stakeholders should enjoy the same access for participation in the policy deliberations and development. This entails, among other things, that they have an equitable time for intervention during the oral debates and that they have enough time to prepare and submit written inputs which will need to be accounted for in the final outcome.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Interactive live and plenary discussions must be part of the process (while making allowance for remote participation). While it is legitimate for every stakeholder group to consult within themselves, the assumption is that all significant concerns and possible bones of contention must be aired publicly and discussed during the plenary multistakeholder deliberations. The need here is to avoid that after all stakeholders walk out at the end of the deliberations thinking they have reached some acceptable agreement on a stable text, one stakeholder group get behind close door and make substantive changes unilaterally.</div>
<div><br></div><div>To give en example to illustrate why I think "equal" footing" does not mean we all have the same capacities and roles and that as such we are interchangeable, the 2012 ITRs (International Telecommunications Regulations) could have been prepared and drafted in a multistakeholder fashion a la "equal footing" (as described above.) And still, at the end of the day, I could not mount a CS coalition from my country for the purposes of voiding my government signature (or, for a treaty that we CS would rather see them sign, push a reluctant government aside, grab the pen and sign it on behalf of my country. Assuming such action can even happen materially, the outcome of course would not have any material effect in international affairs. And as a CS I can manifest in the streets or at the Parliament of my country, but that in itself would not count for ratification or nullification of any international or global multistakeholder binding agreement my government has decided to sign or not to sign. The government will still have to decide to listen to me and make appropriate changes or nothing will change as far as those decisions are concerned.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For all the above reasons, I think "equal footing" really applies mainly to the deliberations of policy development, and it is about equal dignity of the governed and of the governing, and mutual respect. It is that sense of equal dignity and mutual respect that provides the foundation for compelling all stakeholders, chiefly governments, to live up to the outcome of our collective deliberations while further carrying out the particular duties in policy-making. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Sorry for the lengthy response. I intend to add a couple of paragraphs to this addressing specifically "multistakeholderism" and post it later to my blog.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mawaki </div></span></span></span></span></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="">
<br>
<div>On Sunday 27 July 2014 02:24 PM, Ian
Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">definitely I think there is room for some sort of
consensual statement here, and this goes a long way towards
getting one.
<br>
<br>
I just re read the relevant sections of NetMundial statement -
which has some very good inclusions as regards MS and (on my first
quick reading) does not conflict with the sort of separation of
consultation and policy development (multistakeholder) and final
decision making (may be a different process) which both Avri and
Parminder are alluding to.
<br>
<br>
If we are developing a statement I just wonder about the wisdom of
concentrating on "on an equal footing" - to me its a bit like
"enhanced cooperation" and not necessarily meaningful to our
future.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
In a good debate, whether the two sides agree on substantive issues
or not, it is always useful, and mostly possible, to agree on what
are the key issues that are the matter of debate. "Equal footing' is
such key issue. If we skirt it, we remain where we are, wrapped in
obfuscations, often blaming others for positions that they may not
hold and so on. It is best to know what positions we hold, vis a vis
key matters of debate.<br>
<br>
BTW, the following is an excerpt from the NetMundial document.
(emphasis added.)<br>
<br>
(begins)<br>
<br>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm">….. list of points that need better
understanding and further discussion in appropriate fora:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm">1. Different roles and
responsibilities
of stakeholders in Internet governance,<i><b>including the meaning
and
application of equal footing.
</b></i></p>
<br>
(ends)<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Ian Peter
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- From: parminder
<br>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 1:54 PM
<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the
complex IANA transition process
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Saturday 26 July 2014 08:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Snip
<br>
Whenever I need a definition, I use:
<br>
<br>
<br>
The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that
allow
<br>
for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
<br>
participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and
the
<br>
recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and
implementation
<br>
may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision
makers are
<br>
always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their
decisions and
<br>
the implementations.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
The definition above says that the 'equal footing' part is only
for
<br>
participation in deliberation of issues and giving (I understand,
<br>
non-binding) recommendations of solutions. And that it does not
apply to
<br>
actual decision making and implementation. However, this is not
how the
<br>
term 'equal footing' is employed in the current MS discourse and
the
<br>
MSist text that is sought to pushed into global documents,
including at
<br>
NetMundial, CSTD WGs, and almost everywhere else. (I can provide
any
<br>
number of proofs to support this assertion.) There is obviously a
world
<br>
of difference between 'equal footing' for deliberations and rec
giving,
<br>
on one hand, and public policy decision making and implementation,
on
<br>
the other.
<br>
<br>
But lets not crib over the past. If this is the way Avri looks at
MS
<br>
processes, and I see that Mawaki has noted the definition with
some
<br>
enthusiasm, can we attempt what could be a 'grand reconciliation'
:) ...
<br>
Between the so called MSist on one hand and those who profess
global
<br>
democratic governance (called MLists by detractors), which
division I
<br>
understand has almost universally been cited as the key factor
causing
<br>
rifts in the IG related civil society, and making its contribution
far
<br>
less effective than it could have been. A worthy cause to attempt,
<br>
anyone would say.
<br>
<br>
I propose that the IGC adopts the following text by consensus.
<br>
<br>
"With democratic multistakeholder processes we mean an equal
footing
<br>
only for means and forums of deliberations and possible
recommendation
<br>
(non binding) giving. The term 'equal footing' does not extent to
<br>
decision making and implementation."
<br>
<br>
Now, if people want to keep the issue of technical standards
related and
<br>
other decisions out of such a formulation (as I would bec it
admits of a
<br>
different dynamics) we can make clear that we are taking of public
<br>
policy decision making, something which in fact is clear and
given when
<br>
we begin to discuss democracy , which is the present context. but,
still
<br>
can make it explicit, if only to avoid getting into that customary
mess
<br>
of a policy processes related discussions being responded to with
a
<br>
technical decisions related comment(s). So, maybe
<br>
<br>
"With democratic multistakeholder processes for public policies
<br>
development we mean an equal footing only for means and forums of
<br>
deliberations and possible recommendation making (non binding) .
The
<br>
term 'equal footing' does not extent to decision making and
implementation."
<br>
<br>
The NEt Mundial document recommended that the ideas and concepts
related
<br>
to democratic MS processes be discussed further and clarified. By
<br>
attempting the above, we will only be taking forward the work of
NetMundial.
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the
definition
<br>
need to be defined as well. But it is my working definition.
<br>
<br>
avri
<br>
<a href="http://m17m.org" target="_blank">m17m.org</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a> <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>