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

Thu Mar 6 04:55:26 EST 2014

As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full
quote 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.

This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are
not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on
record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are
simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits
submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken together,
certain principles relevant to internet governance can be deduced and
should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human rights.

I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.

It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best
Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant
to internet governance
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing
so; and
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore
should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though
they can of course be involved/consulted) .

Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which
is relevant to internet governance
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
parity with each other when doing so;

Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which
simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial
is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human
rights (among others) are relevant to them.

Joy
Joy
On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., 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 esterhuysen anriette 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/e33722df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/e33722df/attachment.vcf>