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

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear Parminder,

Your position is valid in a predominantly multilateral environment as the
ITU, where there are limits to Civil Society participation, in the absence
of which balance does not prevail, and in the absence of balance, proximity
of Business with Government is unhealthy.

But if you seek to exclude Business from Pubic Policy, then the entire
concept of multi-stakeholder governance is weakened. The basic idea of
multi-stakeholder model is that each stakeholder group brings to the table,
transparently, its own position representing its own best interests, which
are balanced by the positions of other stakeholder groups.

Your position indirectly reflects the views of our own Government, as that
of many other Governments, that '*you are free to provide inputs, but we
decide;  Your role stops with participation (you will be heard), but you
will have no role in framing the policy' *Single Quotes here does not imply
exact wording of the position. The wording is my own, but roughly reflect
the views of some in Government who I have occasion to talk to.  If this is
not the position of Indian Government, I would be happy to retract what I
have said here :)

By seeking to exclude Business, with the claim that it is "position of many
networks of large numbers of civil society organisations" that you work
with [in India?], your views are aligned with the views of Government, and
undermines the entire idea of multi-stakeholder model.

Perhaps you could announce that you will henceforth wear the Government
Hat, then you are free to work towards multilateral model.

And for now, I am entirely with Adam's demand that you should withdraw your
comment.

Thank you

Sivasubramanian M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>



On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Friday 02 May 2014 09:41 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
>  Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance
>
>
> Involvement? well, no. Can you point to where did anyone oppose their
> 'involvement' in Internet governance. Lee, even if we may have different
> views, may I request that we try and represent other people's positions
> fairly and honestly?  The opposition is to 'equal' role' in 'public policy'
> 'decision making'..... Each element is separately highlighted so that you
> miss none... And I think I would have done this - highlighting all these
> elements -   at least 25 times earlier on these lists, if not more.
>
>
>  seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being
> inter-networked across the Internet;
>
>
> So, since drug companies make all the medicine, they should have an 'equal
> role' in health/ drug related 'public policy making'? Please be explicit in
> your response. Such examples can be given in practically all sectors... As
> Mahesh said, since 'production/ business' is not the business of
> governments that should not mean that regulating business is also not their
> business.. That precisely is their business. You would have heard the term
> regulatory capture - that is what is it to have (the regulated) businesses
> given an equal role in relevant public policy making.
>
>
>  not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer-
> techies who keep the whole thing afloat.
>
>
>  Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th
> century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way
> revenue splits; it's just not happening now.
>
>
>  How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights
> domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to
> think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement.
>
>
>  As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto,
> citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and
> businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots
> of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at
> the table.
>
>
> Big business as citizens, well!! Indian law does not recognise business as
> citizens... I know lately US supreme court have shown the tendency towards
> such a perversion, like in the ruling on corporate financing of elections,
> but I know that this judgement is widely opposed by civil society even
> within the US...It surprises me therefore that you are expressing such a
> view rather easily..
>
> I  dont agree that businesses are citizens - national or global -  and
> have citizen rights, nor does all the civil society groups that I work
> with, and I can assure you that, at least in developing countries, they are
> the overwhelming majority (i know it is so in developed countries as well).
>
> I think we need to figure out our basic political positions and bearings
> here, in our internal civil society discourses, before we begin raising
> banners about who represents civil society interests and who does not.
>
> parminder
>
>
>  A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet.
>
>
>  It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough
> China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago.
> (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.)
>
>
>  Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention
> to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global
> economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be
> paying attention.
>
>
>  It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory
> global Internet governance processes.
>
>
>  The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing
> - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct
> lesson.
>
>
>  In my always humble opinion : )
>
>
>  Lee
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net><bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
> <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM
> *To:* Rafik; Adam Peake
> *Cc:* Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group
> on enhanced cooperation
>
>  McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives
> to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!!
>
>  See below but in short, here are the best parts:
> - "*The Role of Companies as citizens*" (NEW DEMOCRACY! )
> - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG
> itself: " *Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process* (note by JCN: *the
> public sector conducting policy making)* *and start to bring together new
> partnerships, new multistakeholder networks*"
> - "*And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on*":
> Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!!
> - and the final touch "*Because of the growing power of the digital
> revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be
> full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they
> understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution
> networks—and participate in them*."
>
>  This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a
> political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision
> makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation.
>
>  Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private
> sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new
> partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all
> over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private
> sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of
> 'enhanced democracy".
>
>  No thanks!
>
>  JC
>
>
>  From McKinsey
>
>
>   *The topic of business* wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods
> Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the
> international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of
> World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author
> and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why
> business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited
> transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows.
>  Interview transcript A new model for solving global problems
>
> There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve
> problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70
> years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model
> has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based
> institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems.
>
> And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are
> not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to
> solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one
> of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and
> collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in
> the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate
> capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on.
>
> In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to
> create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get
> capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate
> that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new
> multistakeholder networks?
>
> A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars
> of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at
> Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of
> society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders
> and created goods and services.
>
> There were also no NGOs1<http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/The_flow_of_governance_An_interview_with_Don_Tapscott?cid=other-eml-alt-mgi-mck-oth-1405#> at
> Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world
> in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into
> something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I
> call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of
> organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of
> people on a daily basis.
>
> And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every
> problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to
> address some of the big challenges facing the global community.
>  The role of companies as citizens
>
> The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the
> smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out.
> There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and
> we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be
> around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together.
> And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur.
>
> But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big
> climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a
> true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from
> government, civil society, and the private sector.
>
> This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think
> about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that
> were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe
> to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to
> get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got
> to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so
> on.
>
> But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil
> society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is
> critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s
> failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic
> development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an
> epidemic in the world today.
>
> Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have
> growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in
> society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of
> these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and
> participate in them.
>
>  Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit :
>
>  Hi Norbert,
>
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140503/aadbdd26/attachment.htm>