[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sat Mar 8 10:48:03 EST 2014
Maybe I'm wrong and I would be delighted to see one of the MSists actually
come out with a clear articulation of what they mean by MSism or a MS
process but my understanding is that MSism is where the various
"stakeholders" i.e. the private sector among others have a direct role in
deciding (i.e. have direct inputs into consensus outputs) concerning issues
of public policy significance arising out of Internet developments.
What that means to me is that for example, Amazon gets to have a direct
input into establishing global taxation policy related to the Internet,
Google as a "stakeholder" is directly involved in establishing global policy
concerning Intellectual Property Rights, Facebook as a matter of stakeholder
"rights" helps determine global standards and regulation concerning privacy
and so on and so on. Perhaps one of the guru's of MSism--Wolfgang, Bertrand,
Jeanette--might explain exactly where I've misunderstood.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 6:49 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; bestbits; michael
gurstein
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
I thought she just got saying that industry has a stake and should have an
opportunity to comment on legislation or regulations that are targeted at
it.
I am not sure how you drew that extra meaning from her words.
On 8 March 2014 7:46:55 PM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically
> dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr..
> "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests,
> not only legal but compulsory?
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette
> Hofmann
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
>
> > 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...
>
>
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this
> for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not
> done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes,
> particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation.
> Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process
> and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what
has been going on in secret.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> > 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
> >>
> >
>
>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list