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

Thu Mar 6 04:07:16 EST 2014

Anriette

I dont think the meaning of multilateral - in terms of global governance 
- has changed since 2001. It is the same. it was never necessarily 
involving only  governments (UNESCO is and was always multi-lateral, but 
involves so many non-gov parties in such deep measures) but yes public 
policy decision making was by governments ..... But of course APC is the 
best judge and exponent of how the term is used in APC's charter..

In any case, since this point in APC charter is about oversight of the 
Internet, what is written in the APC charter certainly goes completely 
against the proposed submission on the BB platform on ICANN matters..

  parminder

On Thursday 06 March 2014 01:44 PM, 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/66e5bc7b/attachment.htm>