[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Mon Mar 10 15:21:41 EDT 2014

Dear Michael,
I would equally like a clear statement from you as to how transnational 
"democracy" should work for Internet-related policy making.  How would 
these "democratic" decisions be enforced?

And, if Amazon is to pay taxes, they should not get a voice in the tax 
debate?  Should only those who do not pay taxes have a voice in the tax 
debate?  How is that democratic?

Regards,
Pranesh

michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> [2014-03-08 10:48:03]:
> Maybe I'm wrong and I would be delighted to see one of the MSists actually
> come out with a clear articulation of what they mean by MSism or a MS
> process but my understanding is that MSism is where the various
> "stakeholders" i.e. the private sector among others have a direct role in
> deciding (i.e. have direct inputs into consensus outputs) concerning issues
> of public policy significance arising out of Internet developments.
>
> What that means to me is that for example, Amazon gets to have a direct
> input into establishing global taxation policy related to the Internet,
> Google as a "stakeholder" is directly involved in establishing global policy
> concerning Intellectual Property Rights, Facebook as a matter of stakeholder
> "rights" helps determine global standards and regulation concerning privacy
> and so on and so on. Perhaps one of the guru's of MSism--Wolfgang, Bertrand,
> Jeanette--might explain exactly where I've misunderstood.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 6:49 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; bestbits; michael
> gurstein
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I thought she just got saying that industry has a stake and should have an
> opportunity to comment on legislation or regulations that are targeted at
> it.
>
> I am not sure how you drew that extra meaning from her words.
>
>
>
> On 8 March 2014 7:46:55 PM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically
>> dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr..
>> "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests,
>> not only legal but compulsory?
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette
>> Hofmann
>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
>> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>> multistakeholder
>> policy making, even at national levels, would you support pharma
>> companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making - actually making -
>> health and drug policies, and big publishers in education policy making,
> and so on...
>>
>>
>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this
>> for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not
>> done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes,
>> particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation.
>> Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process
>> and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what
> has been going on in secret.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the
> 'difference'?
>>>
>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet
>>> may be
>> discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control,
>> for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for
>> multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>> embracing
>> here.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and public
> administration.
>>>>
>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>> subject
>> to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>> representatives .
>>>>
>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>> manner
>> whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international
>> treaties, and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements,
>> the manner of their national application remain in a somewhat complex
>> interplay with national political systems. But this system of global
>> public policies still
>> works.)
>>>>
>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>
>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>> definitions
>> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big
>> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is
>> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover
>> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is happening
> now.
>>>>
>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big
>> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the
> global level.
>> Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level.
>> Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this
>> models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>
>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into
>>>> a
>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite
>>>>> formal,
>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>> public
>> policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go
>> beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without
>> public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>> models
>> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where
>> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should
>> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually
>> done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil
>>>>>> society
>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov
>> participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as
>> gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>> making,
>> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
> statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>> Joy
>> - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on
>> BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out
> withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter
>>>>>>> the
>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>      the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>      society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>      should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>      internet governance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> processes
>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been
>> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>> documents
>> and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet
>> governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial,
>> including human rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing
>>>>>>> the
>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other
>>>>>>> when
>> doing so; and
>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>> therefore
>> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though
>> they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public
>>>>>>> policy
>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing
>>>>>>> or
>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>> which
>> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation
>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter
>>>>>>>> and the
>> use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic,
>>>>>>>> with the
>> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
>> international organisations. No single government should have a
>> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>> dictionary
>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>> defines
>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments,
>> the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No
>> single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to
>> international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>> term
>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we
>> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no
>> one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement
>> of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect
>> to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free
>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the
>> decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from what
>> is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as
>> gov
>> reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for
>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it
>> was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable
>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the
>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder
> roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov
>> actors....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>> this
>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
>> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>> multilateral
>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does
>> not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle
> inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term either
>> does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary
>> fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic'
>>>>>>>>> in
>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did
>>>>>>>>> the
>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to
>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group....
>> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from
> this doc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy
>>>>>>>>> not to
>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end
>> of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post
>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a
>> pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan
>> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>> equitable
>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>> see
>> how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime
>> objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into
>> the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>> got
>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important
>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest
>> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt
> it...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy
>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect
>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that
>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under
>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate
>> basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical
>> provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to
>> do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and
>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and
>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the
>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to
>> the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression,
>> access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a
> knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>> policy
>> advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org
>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director,
>>>>>>>> association
>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director,
>>>>> association
>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140310/1e1cfc32/attachment.sig>