[bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Sat Nov 1 14:31:18 EDT 2014

However, when it comes to broader issues affecting broader public policy and the broader public interest such as for example–taxation policy and revenue distribution, censorship, and the application and enforcement of human rights–means need to be found to ensure the broadest possible inclusion in the mechanisms of governance if only on the basis of classical democratic principles.  As well and perhaps of most importance as the Internet becomes the basis for more and more aspects of public life and civic engagement, the denial of principles of universal suffrage with respect to Internet governance is a denial of democracy itself.

So let’s drop the terminology and conceptual apparatus of “Internet users” at least in the context of Internet policy and Internet governance. Rather let’s think about everyone as actual or potential “users’ of the Internet and everyone as being impacted either directly or indirectly by the Internet. Thus we are all “stakeholders” in Internet governance and we all should have the right to participate in the decisions which will impact on the future management and governance of the Internet — our common heritage and destiny.

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/q-who-are-internet-users-a-everyone/

M

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:23 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

On 25 Oct 2014, at 2:19 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

As I pointed out in an earlier message MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”.

            In iCANN processes, general users of the Internet qualify as stakeholders. While obviously it is impractical for someone who does not yet have access to the Internet to directly participate, there is no barrier to anyone who wishes to advocate for the interests of that group participating, and some do. There are no effective bars to participation based on the definition of stakeholder. This applies to most other MS bodies - for example, becoming involved with an IETF process is literally as simple as joining a mailing list. If you want to be involved in a specific process, you can. They are very open - far, far, more open than any government policy development process of which I am aware. 

            And Michael, you should know this. Are you ignorant of this, despite having allegedly studied these institutions for years, or disingenuously lumping IG MS bodies in with the WEF etc again?

            You keep using 'self-appointed' as if it is a terrible thing. If the process is truly open, of course many participants will be self-appointed. You keep using self-appointed pejoratively - I'm taking from this that you want a closed process, in which all participants are gatekeepered (presumably by governments, or some other bureaucratic process?)?

            Regards

                        David

Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29> participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy> democracy (Greek <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos> demos and  <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82> kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. …

Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.

It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”.

M

From: Jeremy Malcolm [ <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:13 AM
To: michael gurstein;  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

On 24/10/2014 11:03 am, michael gurstein wrote:

As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters.  And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so.”

And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right time and place” to give that definition!

That's why I set up a fluid working group under Best Bits to develop such a definition, but there was not much participation (or maybe the LiquidFeedback software was too complex for people to be comfortable using):

 <http://bestbits.net/lf/> http://bestbits.net/lf/

So far, FWIW, this is the definition that has most support (Avri wrote it):

Multistakeholderism: study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and the implementations.

with the following definitions of some included terms

Equal footing:

The recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet governance this is in line with stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number of people that a representative may claim. Notions of equal footing must take into account all aspects of capacity to participate, and must strive to enable full participation through capacity building and development agendas.

Stakeholder:

A term borrowed from Project Management.

” Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations, or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively involved in a project’s work, affected by the project’s outcome, or in a position to affect the project’s success. “

and the derivative:

Multistakeholder process:

A form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
 <https://eff.org/> https://eff.org
 <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/c03ba719/attachment.htm>