<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Inline…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeremy Malcolm<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 24, 2014 2:32 PM<br><b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>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!<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment upon… there is no definition, no articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can respond to and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy—cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one—international public health, food and nutrition, international resource management, environmental regulation and so on are others. To accomplish this the proponents from the USG, from the WEF, from Google etc. provide a sop to Civil Society and gain their compliance and along with it a degree of legitimation by giving them the illusion of effective participation (the outcome of NetMundial anyone… <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone’s measure and one that is particularly disgusting because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or even knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC are you listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to provide voice for. </span></i></b><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>bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] I/we/the JNC etc. are not commenting on the various “immature implementations” of MSism but rather on MSism as a governance model meant to supplant, supersede, replace democracy as the aspirational model for governance in modern society.</span></i></b><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.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] yes the replacement of a model of governance that has taken millennia to build and cost the lives of thousands of brave folks and may yet cost the lives of even more (see for example the streets of Hong Kong… BTW, the young protestors in Hong Kong aren’t protesting for multi-stakeholderism where the dominant corporate barons of contemporary China can and will sit at the table with the dominant (civil society?) party structures and dominant governmental structures to determine the fate of the Hong Kong people, that is what they have already! They are putting their lives, bodies and futures on the line for DEMOCRACY, the rule of the people by the people.</span></i></b><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.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table (apart from the bizarre flourish of calling it “Participatory Democracy”--I can call my cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn’t make him any less of a cat or any more of dog) doesn’t “represent” anyone other than those who show up or are allowed to show up and through them the interests that they represent. BTW, I’m all in favour of Deliberative (and Participatory for that matter) Democracy, the problem is that neither of these bears any relationship at all either to the current practices or “theories” of MSism.</span></i></b><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.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling it… we really are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation state in this context. Democracy began outside of nation states, certainly developed within the context of nation states but is neither by definition nor by necessary practice confined within the framework of nation states. BTW I completely agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit between democratic accountability and traditional nation state structures and as I mentioned, in what I think was my first contribution to this thread, I am extremely interested in collaborating with others in exploring alternative strategies for democratic practice which better fit with the opportunities and risks of the globalized Internet era.</span></i></b><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 style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you like, they just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are commenting on… <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M</span></i></b><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Jeremy Malcolm<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Senior Global Policy Analyst<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Electronic Frontier Foundation<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::<o:p></o:p></pre></div></body></html>