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

[parminder]

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.... 
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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/7010dd1e/attachment.htm>