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

[michael gurstein]

When I started out in this space I believed as you suggest… no particular reason not to… but as time went on and the objective positions that people were taking so clearly lined up in support of corporate interests and the interests of particular governments it got increasingly difficult to maintain that position since clearly those interests that they were supporting were not, to my mind consistent with “democracy and accountability” or with anything that I understood as being the on-going concerns of CS in the larger world… 

 

And then with the WCIT when there was this lemming like stampede to line up behind the US State Department and Google for the Internet Freedom crusade… no reflection on what the positioning behind that crusade might mean in a larger global context or even in a serious thinking about things like taxation, or security, or even real measures to protect diversity and freedom of expression online.  As I said at the time CS is either naïve or bought given the positions they are articulating.  

 

Mr. Snowden has proven the correctness of my analysis at the time but I have yet to hear any reflections by any of the CS (or other) Internet Freedom “crusaders” on their ill-advised positioning.

 

So I guess if stating the truth is insulting, so be it.

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:46 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

"not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”

 

Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democracy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of how to reach it 

 

Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

 

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

 

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

 

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).    

 

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

 

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

 

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer… 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).