[bestbits] Principles (warning - long)

[Norbert Bollow]

(This posting is entirely in my personal capacity; where I write about
JNC as “we”, I am giving my perception, not speaking on behalf of JNC.
Although I'm pretty sure that I could probably back up all those claims
with references to specific published JNC statements, I haven't done
that double-checking.)


On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 18:21:50 +0800
David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> 	So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe
> its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite
> tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on
> practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made
> into a practical transnational organisation).

I personally started the journey which led to my involvement in what
eventually led to the creation of the Just Net Coalition by writing an
Internet-Draft specifically on an idea for practical/operational
multistakeholder consensus processes on matters of public policy 
at the transnational level, while adopting a central design goal that
decision-making must be democratic.

See http://wisdomtaskforce.org/

But how could this or any other proposal be evaluated in the absence of
credible and well-considered principles?

Therefore IMO the Just Net Coalition must necessarily take the route of
seriously working on principles before thereafter, on the basis of that
work, endorsing or not particular solution proposals.

> 	I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden
> participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact,
> a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the
> inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed
> to openness as a principle per se.

That is not quite true.

We are not opposed to the inclusion of commercial operators in the
discourse processes.

We are however opposed to including them in ways which violate the
principles of democracy. For example giving them what is in effect veto
rights violates the principles of democracy.

> negotiation text. Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the
> excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to
> what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some
> members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. 

Of course transparency is critically important for creating any
democratic model of Internet governance, and hence for one of our core
objectives.

That however does not justify witch-hunts against the ITU or against
any other organization.

> 	And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to
> consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to
> me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage
> broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms.
> Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but
> *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process,
> which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most
> policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures. It is
> also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact
> definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its
> processes, and there are several more  being used in the IG space),
> and some may be more practical or desirable than others. 

For a position on a process and definition of consensus which Richard
Hill and I recommend for use in the context of public policy related
multistakeholder discourse, see the final section of the paper “Thoughts
on Best Practices for Multistakeholder Participation Mechanisms” at
http://www.apig.ch/best_practices.pdf

> 	And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting
> that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy
> that they dislike, etc.

In my view, we are not at all hostile to consensus in JNC. In fact our
internal decision processes have so far all been consensus process
based.

Also in my view, in public discourses on public policy matters a serious
attempt at reaching consensus should always be made.

We however strongly oppose elevating consensus decision making to the
status of a principle that would be more fundamental than the principle
that public policy decision-making must be democratic.

Such an over-emphasis on consensus implies that powerful companies can
prevent consensus and then they're free to do whatever they want. Such
a situation is not democratic.

> and advocating strongly for majority voting
> mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism
> over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of
> minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to
> prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are
> unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable.

That depends.

We are in favor of mechanism which promote fair and competitive
markets. Such mechanisms tend to attract the support of a majority
vote, while they are unfavorable to the bosses and major shareholders of
monopolistic companies (a minority of voters).

On the other hand, there are populist policies which in fact violate
the human rights of a minority. Of course no kinds of human rights
violations are acceptable in any context of democratic governance. In
a democratic system of governance, any law or other kind of kind of
governmental action which violates human rights can be ended by a
national constitutional court or transnational human rights law. This
limits the power of a majority to decide policies unfavorable to
minorities, especially in view of the fact that significant principles
of social and economic justice are included among the internationally
recognized human rights. 

> It is
> also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying
> who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a
> non-trivial problem

Yes, absolutely. Which is why in my “Wisdom Task Force” proposal, I
propose to use the already existing national mechanisms.

It is true that in many countries these are not really democratic
enough. Those issues need to be corrected anyway independently of
whatever should be done specifically in regard to Internet governance.  

> The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a
> principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the
> considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt
> with.

I've given my view above. We don't have a consolidated JNC position or
set of views on this yet, but we're working on that.

> I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1
> vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely
> varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not
> really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy.
> It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether
> they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies
> their commitment to democracy as a principle or not.

It's certainly less undemocratic than decision-making models which in
effect ignore the perspectives and needs of entire countries completely.

However it is certainly not a fully democratic system.

JNC is committed to striving for something better, more democratic and
more participative. See point 18 of the Delhi Declaration
http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration .

> The TL:DR summary - 
> Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without
> gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. Transparency.
> Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to
> all who wish to participate by default. And Commitment to consensus.
> Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may
> be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus
> processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred
> to majority voting procedures.

I agree with all of those three points.

I however insist that they must not be elevated above the principle of
democratic decision making. These three principles must be implemented
in a democratic framework.

> I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here

I believe you; your posting does not read like an intentional attempt
in that direction.

Nevertheless, your misunderstandings of the JNC positions do add up to
your portrayal of JNC's positions being a near-total strawman which has
little or nothing at all to do with my views at least.

> - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members
> who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are
> now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU
> transparency,

You must have overlooked JNC's signature and endorsement of the Oct 8
civil society letter on ITU transparency and openness
http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/Letter_to_ITU_-_Busan_Transparency.pdf

Like all other JNC statements and endorsements, this was decided by
means of consensus in JNC. 

> or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus
> decision making has clearly failed, etc.

My view is that there should always be at least a serious attempt at
having an open and participative consensus process. If urgency of a
decision prevents having a full consensus process before the decision
is needed, a preliminary decision should be taken by other means and
the opportunity for the consensus oriented discourse should be created
thereafter, without undue time pressure.

Voting should be done only in the context of a democratic or
multilateral framework.

However, if a democratic or multilateral framework is available in which
voting can reasonably take place, and if there has been a successful
open and participative consensus process, then there should be no harm
in having a vote. The result of such a vote should be unanimous or
near-unanimous.

> But I think
> it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour
> MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to
> paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles
> that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with
> multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based
> on a commitment to those broader principles.

I would classify anyone as being relatively hostile to democracy who
elevates those three principles so highly that it isn't seen as a
serious problem anymore if a process (with public policy relevance) is
not democratic but it only (approximately or fully) conforms to those
three principles.

Greetings,
Norbert
(co-convenor and co-founder of JNC, but writing in personal capacity.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/ea91490a/attachment.sig>