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

Thu Mar 6 07:02:41 EST 2014

Joy

You clarify the difference between two positions very well..

So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society 
statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov  
participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as 
gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.

*/Fine. There is no room for confusion now.

  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.

Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, 
which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying 
statements.

parminder

PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - 
or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I 
hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. 
Thanks.

/*
*/
On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
> 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 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/20140306/961bfb8f/attachment.htm>