<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div><div></div><div>Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency, inclusion and accountability is needed for both. </div><div><br></div><div>Anriette</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:9px;color:#575757">Sent from Samsung Mobile</div></div></div><br><br><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> </div><div>Date:23/10/2014 11:37 (GMT+02:00) </div><div>To: michael gurstein <gurstein@gmail.com>,'Milton L Mueller' <mueller@syr.edu> </div><div>Cc: bestbits@lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' <Irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>,governance@lists.igcaucus.org,forum@justnetcoalition.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on
period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations </div><div><br></div>Milton says:<br><br>"I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that<br>than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation<br>of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work<br>better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better<br>precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure<br>majority rule."<br><br>In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old<br>intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private<br>sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues<br>identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the<br>asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet<br>connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security. Sorry to be<br>repetitive, but please see:<br><br> http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc<br><br>and<br><br> http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress<br>ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis<br><br>Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only<br>element. On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental<br>element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which<br>includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by<br>majorities.<br><br>Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the<br>nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving<br>to correct their bad features.<br><br>Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of<br>alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not<br>something that I can support.<br><br>Best,<br>Richard<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces@justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael<br>gurstein<br>Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35<br>To: 'Milton L Mueller'<br>Cc: bestbits@lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance@lists.igcaucus.org;<br>forum@justnetcoalition.org<br>Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for<br>ITUPlenipot joint recommendations<br><br><br>Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and<br>multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms<br>of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including<br>through their representative governance structures most of which at least<br>nominally have presented themselves as "democracies".<br><br>True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of<br>us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a<br>fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the<br>legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue,<br>self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through<br>corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western,<br>technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites.<br><br>But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting<br>for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would<br>that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties<br>lie..<br><br>M<br><br>From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]<br>Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM<br>To: 'michael gurstein'<br>Cc: 'bestbits@lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance@lists.igcaucus.org'<br>Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint<br>recommendations<br><br>The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we<br>the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and<br>international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with<br>equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote.<br><br>Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however:<br><br>we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip]<br>democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes.<br><br>But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a<br>better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its<br>clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of<br>these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of<br>communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old<br>sense of pure majority rule.<br><br>Milton L. Mueller<br>Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor<br>Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>IRP mailing list<br>IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<br>https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp<br><br></body>