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

[parminder]

On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> 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...
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to 
> that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my 
> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no 
> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision 
> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that 
> language being used.
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as 
> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a 
> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may 
> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one 
> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For 
> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human 
> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam 
> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human 
> rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, 
> and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the 
> trading of IPv4 addresses.

I am ready to sign off on this language, by adding some things like, 
social justice claims also in govs basket (very often, and easily, 
forgotten). Can I propose it for adoption by BB and IGC..... Now, if 
there are others who dont agree to the above - and of course there are 
such people whereby Jeremy had to defer - would they please explain 
their position. For the sake of transparency and accountability, and of 
course, if democracy means anything, for promoting deliberative democracy.

And again, I never spoke of the whole range of issues and elements that 
governance consists of, and your response is therefore a bit off track..

I asked my question specifically in terms of - /*taking decisions in 
terms of public policies*/... Please answer that part specifically. Now 
lets not begin on, one does not understand what is meant by 'public 
policies'... The whole discipline of political science is based on it, 
all constitutions of the world are relatively clear about this term.

>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may 
> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all 
> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder 
> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the 
> circumstances.

All the examples you mention can be captured in some concepts and theory 
for appropriate democratic governance... Non-fixity is the post modern 
contraption that the powerful have used very well in the global IG 
space.... We can claim non fixity for anything and then not allow any 
norms to be built... Is transparency, to take just one example, a fixed 
norm - I can show you a thousand counter-instances where it cannot be 
made to apply... That way nothing is fixed.... So, then why write any 
principle at all. Making principles is about fixing things somewhat, as 
higher norms which practice uses as guidelines... Tell me one principle 
which has fixed meaning and application... Is equality among all people 
a fixed thing, is 'liberty' .........



parminder
>
>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
>> to NetMundial
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
> --
> 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/20140305/7ccd6f6a/attachment.htm>