[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Mar 8 02:03:38 EST 2014
On Saturday 08 March 2014 12:02 PM, parminder wrote:
>> SNIP
>>
>> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body
>> that can make certain types of policies. Members of CGI.br on these
>> lists can give examples.
>>
>> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body
>> that is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public
>> policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.
>
> I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br having made a public
> policy. Can you offer one.. then we will know what exactly are we
> discussing here.
Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
education policy making, and so on...
If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may be
discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control,
for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for
multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are embracing
here.
parminder
>
> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
> authority and delegated authority. These are concepts and ideas that
> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
> public administration.
>
> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
> representatives .
>
> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
> manner whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
> this system of global public policies still works.)
>
> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>
> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions
> regarding public policy etc and then find entry points for big
> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is
> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover
> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is
> happening now.
>
> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of 'equal footing' in
> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big
> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>
> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
> contributing so strongly to...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>>
>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>
>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>
>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>> approving/rejecting'.
>>
>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models
>> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where
>> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should
>> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually
>> done in an inclusive MS space.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> 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/20140308/42405d4f/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list