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

[parminder]

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.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/feb75815/attachment.htm>