<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Since you did not answer my question the first time, and at least one other person has put it a slightly different way, and here you reference "state-based ordering" and "nation states are no longer an adequate fit," in both cases directly indicating that states should be bypassed, invalidated, or otherwise overcome, I feel it is fair to ask again: is it fair to say your political philosophy is anarchism? If so, which variety of anarchism? If not anarchism, which non-state philosophy is it? To whose political theory should we turn to understand this system in detail? And is this an official policy position of EFF? <br><br></div>You are being very critical and dismissive of what you call "harassment" and "ingrained views," but I can't read your statements here without them entailing some kind of rejection of exactly the political forms to which many people who live in democracies are deeply committed. For example: most citizens of most democratic countries in the world today believe they have elected their governments and entrust them with the power to represent them *via* the state. The state is the clearest guarantor of the rights laid out in the UN Declaration on Human Rights. It seems a reasonable inference to suggest that the great majority of citizens in most (speaking loosely) democratic states would not consider the bypassing, invalidation, or overcoming of the state to be a welcome political development, especially if it is done by any bodies other than the elected governments they have put in place. At the very least, they would no doubt demand the right to vote on it and to subject it to whatever other tests political changes require in their respective states. Further, not putting such a choice before them would reject popular sovereignty in the most direct way, thus making it very hard to see the change as in any sense "democratic." <br><br></div>I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a handle on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what appears to be a clear rejection of values and principles that the great majority of people in the world would be very unlikely to give up (at least not easily), and what political system is being recommended to replace it. <br><div><div><br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to
overcome these problems. However, its track record to date is not
brilliant when it comes to making progress on important matters,
nor is its inclusiveness brilliant.</blockquote>
<br></span>
I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model
that we hear from JNC members are directed at immature
implementations of that model of which - here's the point -
proponents of multi-stakeholderism have themselves been highly
critical!<br>
<br>
They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these
implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to
mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status
quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" -
how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the
status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance?<br>
<br>
Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the
IGF, which is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree)
which reiterates criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the
multi-stakeholder model that we have been repeating endlessly for
almost a decade:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/" target="_blank">bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/</a><br>
<br>
The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't
be attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for
abandoning the ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just
because they haven't yet been achieved. Their achievement will be
the work of decades, not years.<br>
<br>
Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that
multi-stakeholderism is not democratic if it doesn't represent all
the people, and that if participants in multi-stakeholder processes
are anything less then everybody, they are "elites". This reflects
a very shallow conception of democracy, which for example excludes
deliberative democratic practices where in which we attempt to
include all affected <i>perspectives</i>, rather than all
individuals.<br>
<br>
As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to
date. But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme
that underlies the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which
is really nothing more than to realise democratic principles on an
international level where nation states are no longer an adequate
fit.<br>
<br>
We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained
views here that are not going to budge regardless of how much back
and forth there is on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC
now has their own list where they can advance their models of
state-based ordering, while the rest of can work on improving
multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a href="https://eff.org" target="_blank">https://eff.org</a>
<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
Tel: <a href="tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161" value="+14154369333" target="_blank">415.436.9333 ext 161</a>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::</pre>
</font></span></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><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>David Golumbia<br><a href="mailto:dgolumbia@gmail.com">dgolumbia@gmail.com</a>
</div></div></div></div></div>