<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 10 March 2015 06:43 PM,
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't need
these institutions and that we should not participate in them and make
them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as you say,
ignore their democratic deficits.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Wolfgang and Anriette, I have not been able to understand who here
has been ignoring democratic deficits in 'these institutions' and,
further, how by asking to retain references to democracy and
democratic in IG documents, that are increasingly peppered with the
MS term (which efforts btw are not to be considered as
wordsmith-ing), one may be contributing to ignoring any kind of
democratic deficit. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
These deficits exist at national level as well.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly, and still there seem to be no proposals around to replace
democratic republic of India or South Africa with Multistakholder
entity of India or South Africa. Efforts in such kind of directions
however have begun at the global level, of which the recent UNESCO
doc is a testimony. This, is the problem that some of us are trying
to highlight and address, and I dont see it as a small problem. <br>
<br>
We seek to address national level democratic deficits by trying to
improve and increase democracy, which is rather ill-served by
replacing this key political ideal of 'democracy' by new political
terms which undermine people's sovereignty and democratic rights.
Similarly at the global level. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing
intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, but only as long as these multistakeholder (MS) approaches do
not seek to supplant these processes - you cannot make a set of
processes more inclusive and transparent by supplanting them - which
is the problem that is being sought to be addressed. This problem is
represented in the insistence that 'democratic' be removed but the
MS term retained in a key global normative document related to IG. <br>
<br>
It is worth repeated a hundred times that no one, including JNC,
asked for removal of the MS term, but people expressly and strongly
asked for the removal of the 'democratic' term, and got away with
it. We are simply saying that they should not have got away with it.
And many here seem to think, that is all right - this is the
problem, and at the root of the current discussion.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:54FEEE14.3090909@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Anriette
On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at">wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at</a>) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all,
just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate international cooperation in the economic and social field can be considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the world according to the principle of geographical representation, the largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play its role. In IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations and groupings is very limited, the more so as the
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""> real dec
isions are taken there.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be done for multistakeholderism in its present form.
Wolfgang Benedek
Von: Michael Gurstein <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><mailto:gurstein@gmail.com></a>>
Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10
An: "<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>" <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>>, Wolfgang Benedek <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at">wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at"><mailto:wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at></a>>, "<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><mailto:nb@bollow.ch></a>" <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nb@bollow!
.ch">nb@b
o
llow.ch</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><mailto:nb@bollow.ch></a>>
Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very informed commentary with most of which I agree...
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org></a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at">wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at"><mailto:wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at></a>)
Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
Dear Norbert,
I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the results. One could also argue as more democratic the relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.
[MG] agree
Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent about the objectives of the different partners.
[MG] agree
To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state level among citizens.
[MG] agree
We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.
[MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert. Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.
At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood in its broadest and most inclusive meaning. Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve “further democratization” of existing institutions but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for institutions yet to be created. That is why the USG is so concerned that they would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.
M
Wolfgang Benedek
t
Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><mailto:nb@bollow.ch></a>>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a significant
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">divide which is in existence within civil society in relation to
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Internet governance can be characterized appropriately as follows:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">democratic. This is often done by insisting on the importance of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">multistakeholder governance without mentioning democracy at all.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting that
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy viewpoints may
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes for Internet
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy viewpoints would
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">necessarily agree in any way with multistakeholderism), but the
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">principle that governance must be democratic would always be seen as
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">having greater importance and a higher priority than any endorsement of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">multistakeholderism.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<pre wrap="">>From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those who
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as democratic.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically, Jeremy
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other countries who
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">had instructions from their governments to support positions of the US
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">government in relation to multistakeholderism upon any such request
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">>from the US delegation) were unwilling to agree to any kind of
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">consensus text along those lines.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I have
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">viewpoints of both sides.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Greetings,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Norbert
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Norbert Bollow <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><mailto:nb@bollow.ch></a>> wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">those general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">written words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is true that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">text which is mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*)
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">perspectives:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">my proposal <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://WisdomTaskForce.org">http://WisdomTaskForce.org</a> and clarified that
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">it as a JNC position, and
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">addressing the challenges of developing *global* public policy,
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">without overlooking the fact that it is not always possible to reach
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">consensus.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">words: "So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">(particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">people. In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!"
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">concrete proposals on a significant number of topics.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">*global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">always possible to reach consensus.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">it is not always possible to reach consensus.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">(In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders should
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in contrast to
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">purely technical matters where the disagreements are about questions
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">solution?")
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the discourse has been moved forward a bit.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">discussion without concretely discussing concrete proposals in
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">relation to this important question would probably indeed result in
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">going around in circles.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">vast body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And I would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">as easy to answer it in a satisfactory way.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Greetings,
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Norbert
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">(*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">distinction between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">viewpoints, and in which I will solicit comments on that description
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">of this distinction.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, 8 Mar
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"><mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org></a>> wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><mailto:nb@bollow.ch></a>> wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"><mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org></a>> wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">(particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">pro-multi-stakeholder people. In fact, we have more concrete
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">proposals than you do!
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them,
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">like I have given a link to my proposal?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">( <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://WisdomTaskForce.org">http://WisdomTaskForce.org</a> .)
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">on. Start at GigaNet (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://giga-net.org/">http://giga-net.org/</a>). For a less academic,
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">NETmundial (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs">http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs</a>). For my
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">own part, you're already aware that seven years ago I published
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">over 600 pages on how the IGF could become a multi-stakeholder body
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">that makes public policy recommendations, and released it under
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Creative Commons at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401">https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401</a>-
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">surely that counts if your Wisdom Task Force counts. And do none
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">of the current proposals for IANA transition (eg.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-ia
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">na/)
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">count for anything?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">multi-stakeholder processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">calling a "quality seal" of multi-stakeholderism), rather than
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">proposals that are specific to the IGF, ICANN, etc. then you can
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">expect news about another effort to produce something like this in
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO side-meeting
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming soon
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">and I'm not going to steal its thunder.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">point, right? The problem that you really have is that you're not
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">satisfied with what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">statist global governance, which you don't accept is democratically
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">legitimate. So let's not muddy the water with false issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">has been going around in circles. Everything that could possibly
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">be said between us on this topic, has been - many times. I'm
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">starting to feel like I should just write a FAQ, and reply to list
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">mails with a link to that. For now, if there is anything that you
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">think you don't already have a response to, write to me off list
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">and I'll point you to it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>