[bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency,  inclusion and accountability is needed for both. 

Anriette



Sent from Samsung Mobile

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> </div><div>Date:23/10/2014  11:37  (GMT+02:00) </div><div>To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>,'Milton L Mueller' <mueller at syr.edu> </div><div>Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,forum at justnetcoalition.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on
 	period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations </div><div>
</div>Milton says:

"I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that
than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation
of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work
better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better
precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure
majority rule."

In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old
intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private
sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues
identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the
asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet
connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security.  Sorry to be
repetitive, but please see:

  http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc

and

  http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress
ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis

Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only
element.  On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental
element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which
includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by
majorities.

Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the
nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving
to correct their bad features.

Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of
alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not
something that I can support.

Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael
gurstein
Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35
To: 'Milton L Mueller'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for
ITUPlenipot joint recommendations


Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and
multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms
of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including
through their representative governance structures most of which at least
nominally have presented themselves as "democracies".

True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of
us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a
fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the
legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue,
self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through
corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western,
technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites.

But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting
for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would
that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties
lie..

M

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM
To: 'michael gurstein'
Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'
Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint
recommendations

The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we
the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and
international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with
equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote.

Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however:

we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip]
democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes.

But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a
better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its
clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of
these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of
communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old
sense of pure majority rule.

Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141023/28f0d5ad/attachment.htm>