[bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation

Fri May 2 11:25:15 EDT 2014

Rafik, you are attacking a straw-man position, which has nothing to do
at all with my position or values or the proposal that I included a
link to.

I am very much in favor of open multistakeholder processes with full
involvement of all interested parties, including the private sector,
for the development of policy proposals, including coordination of
proposals with the goal of minimizing problems when different
countries choose to adopt different public policy options.

In my view, the attempt should always be made to reach a full global
multistakeholder consensus. This will not always succeed, but even if
it doesn't succeed, much can be learned through participation in a
well-run multistakeholder consensus process with participants of
diverse backgrounds. Often the result of such a process will not be
consensus but a much improved understanding of where the real problems
are in terms of significantly conflicting interests, and what the
benefits and drawbacks of different possible and justifiable policy
choices are in regard to the legitimate interests of different
stakeholder groups. These insights should then be provided to national
parliaments so that the choice between different public policy
possibilities, each justifiable and right from some perspective, will
be made in a democratic manner, on the basis of the best possible
information.

In regard to your point about non-democratic states: They obviously
have a totally broken governance system. They obviously violate the
human rights of the people living there. But neither of those points
should be allowed to stop the people living in parts of the world where
the governments are to a significant degree democratic (like is the case
for me) from being allowed to insist that we value democracy, and
we don't want to lose it, even when the line between Internet
governance and traditional areas of governance is becoming more and
more blurred.

Greetings,
Norbert

Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing
> many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having
> any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having
> role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems
> with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having
> SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match
> democratic values you are mentioning .
> 
> With the state-based model that you are defending, do you  really
> think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really
> representing Tunisian citizens?  It will be just ironic while you are
> mentioning  the right of people for self-determination. The
> state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the
> world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any
> possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies.
> 
> Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian  and coming from
> developing region to participate in such process , but at least I
> have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the
> marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts
> giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. 
> 
> Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are
> defending cannot be improved at all.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> a écrit :
> 
> > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons.
> > 
> > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real
> > danger today.
> > 
> > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly
> > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy
> > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine
> > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination.
> > 
> > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the
> > legal construct through which this human right is established is
> > via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the
> > peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the
> > document the right to democratic processes is established.
> > 
> > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible
> > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want
> > to forsake it before a proven alternative is available.
> > 
> > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states.
> > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract
> > anything.
> > 
> > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost
> > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as
> > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the
> > various examples of totally non-democratic states here.
> > 
> > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as
> > those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> > 
> > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900
> > schrieb Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> > 
> >> Dear Parminder,
> >> 
> >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported
> >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration
> >> of Principles.)  It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary
> >> in Tunis that this language was unacceptable.  To the best of my
> >> knowledge this position has not changed.  As recently as last week
> >> in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we
> >> oppose paragraph 35.
> >> 
> >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of
> >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation
> >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself
> >> with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others.
> >> 
> >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on
> >> roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript.
> >> You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later
> >> today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below.
> >> 
> >> Please act immediately.
> >> 
> >> Thank you,
> >> 
> >> Adam
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE
> >>>> SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT
> >>>> SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE
> >>>> ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE
> >>>> TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT
> >>>> OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER
> >>>> SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND
> >>>> THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED
> >>>> COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS
> >>>> SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. 
> >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT
> >> WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT
> >> TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS
> >> WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN
> >> GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL
> >> LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER
> >> IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT
> >> PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE
> >> SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE
> >> PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK
> >> ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN
> >> EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT
> >> IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE
> >> SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE
> >> ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
> >> COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE
> >> THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. 
> >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. 
> >> 
> >> Tunis Agenda
> >> 
> >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses
> >> both technical and public policy issues and should involve all
> >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international
> >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy
> >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
> >> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities
> >> for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The
> >> private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important
> >> role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and
> >> economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important
> >> role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and
> >> should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental
> >> organizations have had, and should continue to have, a
> >> facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public
> >> policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and
> >> should continue to have an important role in the development of
> >> Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits