[bestbits] [JNC - Forum] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations
Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
Thu Oct 23 13:03:13 EDT 2014
Thanks Richard for refreshing every one's memory with clarity and verified facts.
MSism is a great invention because:
- it dilutes everything into a liquid form where everything turns into an x-thing
- it says one day that MS started with the setting of the Tunis Agenda, the next minute it says that the entire Internet was done under a MS approach. (see WK on this)
- it opposes any form of political approach/thinking/reflection of the Internet governance debate, something rather very democratic, opposing by the same token a debate rightfully made of different views. MS refuses confrontation, often claiming that a different view is a personal aggression.
- it looks for positive wording, trying to avoid the hard talks and hard points. "Please no diverging views".
- it tends to be self satisfied, as well as self nominated.
- it assimilates a +1 with a +1 billion voices
- it tends to assimilate a corp and a gov
- it imagines that it has any kind of representativity of the Internet users community
- it claims that countries have their role, but only home, ignoring that an international treaty would be to the benefit of more people on earth, pushing other states to join the club of the willing
- it refuses to admit that the UN system has endorsed the declaration of human rights as part of its DNA, long before any corp even thought about it. It also means that any other UN agency or affiliated organization such as the ITU have also endorsed that transnational thinking and philosophy
- it denies the fact that since its inception in San Francisco during WWII, the UN has been a dramatic contributor to world peace and development, even though many vested interests have kept the world in a state of crisis for the benefit of a few.
- It maintains a state of asymmetry in terms of who controls the Internet (I do not need to be more precise here, I believe)
- It maintains division within civil society, one day flattering CS by telling that CS has a great role, the next day ignoring it by organizing behind close doors meetings where CS are not even convened (remember the process leading to the MS NetMundial meeting, the I* meeting organized for better coordination, the WEF initiative..., all beautiful products of MS)
- It constantly breaks the reflection over IG by dividing it into separate issues, when they all belong to the same pot (political IG of global reach, transnational by nature). "The ITU is an horror", according to MSists, who suggest to move parts of the debate to other venues, claiming that HR should be discussed at HCR, that intellectual rights should be discussed at WIPO, that trade agreements at WTO, cybercrime at Interpol or another UN body... All of that is very smart and sometimes indicated. At the end of the day, it diverts attention of CS and breaks its intelligence and limited means into many fronts where and when at the core of IG, nothing changes. IG is a political debate, but part of it could rightfully be seen as part of a discussion of global and international magnitude. The IGF, a UN-born initiative under ECOSOC, UNICEF, ITU and others is a dead infant so far, if fundings do not support an honest and decent body of work and team. ICANN with its magnificence and many USD taken from every corner of the planet does not walk to walk for the common good. We all know it.
- it doesn't exist but every one who benefits from the current situation (making some money out of that situation) tends to recognize its existence.
I suggest to MSists to launch a campaign to bring the debate regarding the high consumption of energy by computers, cloud and other digital niceties, to WMO and UNEP, who both drive the IPCC report. That should be a great deal of talk-talk...
More seriously, I do not see an inch of progress coming after NetMundial in the usual suspect SC tribe. Milton had a dream in Istanbul, thanks to the Turkish delices, but again where does that becomes a reality and confront the current domination of the Internet by a few. One cannot think that the WEF show in August 2014 had any significant ability to make a better world and rebalance the current asymmetry. Did the WAF made some money out of that show?
NetMundial was calling for roadmaps. Where are they? Where are the great minds?
NetMundial has endorsed a democratic MS: was it a mistake? Is it simply impossible to realize? Ayatollah and young talibans of the IG debate are not those claiming for a true democratic approach. Quite the opposite. Those protecting the holy Mecca of digital power should reconsider their own bias. And focus on what is at stake : a fair and decent international governance for the Internet.
Jean-Christophe
Le 23 oct. 2014 à 17:54, Richard Hill a écrit :
> Paragraph 34 of the Tunis Agenda reads:
>
> "34. A working definition of Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet."
>
> The "respective roles" are outlined in paragraph 35, which includes the following:
>
> "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."
>
> The only use of the expression "equal footing" is found in paragraph 69, where it refers to equal footing among governments. This language was specifically addressing the asymmetric role of the US government.
>
> Thus I cannot agree with Wolfgang's interpetation to the effect that the WSIS outcomes imply that Internet governance should be based on a model in which stakeholders operate on equal footing and decisions are made by rough consensus and without veto rights.
>
> Note that, at present, in the formal treaty-making processes, each state in effect has veto rights, because no treaty binds a state unless it has been ratified at the national level. In democratic countries, ratification is usually an act of parliament.
>
> That is, there is democratic control over treaties and their effects. This is not just theory, it is practice: ACTA was defeated by parliaments.
>
> So removing "veto rights" would, in my view, be undemocratic, because states would then be bound by decisions taken by "rough consensus" in some international forum, and the citizens of states could not challenge those decisions through their normal democratic processes. For example, we would all be stuck with ACTA.
>
> Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda describes the IGF. But it must be understood in context, that is, in relation with paragraphs 34 and 35.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Baudouin Schombe [mailto:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com]
> Sent: jeudi, 23. octobre 2014 14:44
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; Milton L Mueller; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; IRP; JNC Forum
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations
>
>
> "The key reference is the working definition of Internet Governance from the Tunis Agenda, which has stated that "decision making procedures" with regard to Internet Governance has to be "shared" among all stakeholders. This means that there is no "Hierarchie Structure" among the stakeholders but a "Network Structure" where stakeholders operate in their respective roles on equal footing and has to work hand in
> Hand towards rough consensus and without veto rights".
>
>
> I fully support this Wolfgang argument . In my opinion, I think the rules of the games have already been defined since 2003 and 2005, more specifically, in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.
> Should we still questioning a document which was approved by all members of the United Nations?
> I realize that this is also from this period that the multi-stakeholder approach arose. .
> Currently our platforms or discussion networks have adopted this approach even if the part of governments and private sectors, it is not yet so accepted.
> In the field of digital technology, it is an inescapable approach.
>
>
> 2014-10-23 13:03 GMT+02:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
>
> The Intergovernmental organizations and the related intergovernmental treaty system (as the ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO etc.) will continue to play a specific role but it is now embedded in a multistakeholder environment. The key reference is the working definition of Internet Governance from the Tunis Agenda, which has stated that "decision making procedures" with regard to Internet Governance has to be "shared" among all stakeholders. This means that there is no "Hierarchie Structure" among the stakeholders but a "Network Structure" where stakeholders operate in their respective roles on equal footing and has to work hand in Hand towards rough consensus and without veto rights. This does not exclude that the individual stakeholder groups make their own arrangements among themselves which can include also arrangements among governments in form of treaties under international law.
>
>
> wolfgang
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen
> Gesendet: Do 23.10.2014 12:41
> An: rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; 'Milton L Mueller'
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org
> Betreff: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>
> COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC
>
> ICANN/AFRALO Member
>
> ISOC Member
> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
> email : b.schombe at gmail.com
> skype : b.schombe
> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum mailing list
> Forum at justnetcoalition.org
> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141023/8db61571/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list