[bestbits] Gurstein's critiques...

Sat Oct 25 18:08:29 EDT 2014

Dear BB people,

Your list provides a richly nuanced and refreshingly transparent resource to
witness the evolution of your work. Thank you for making it as accessible as
it has been thus far. I¹m learning from you. That said, a number of question
have come up for me as I continue to follow your work

As a listserv-lurking researcher studying Best Bits as an evolving community
of practice situated/navigating/negotiating between/among what seem to be
conflicted constructions of collective, coalition, community, constituency,
lobbying group, etc. I confess I remain flummoxed by what seems to be a
relentless critique (teetering sometimes between idealism and realism),
primarily by Gurstein but others as well, of various attempts to strike
common ground on a number of difficult questions/issues, most recently, the
MSism issue (see email below). Lingering in many statements and responses to
them seems to be the issue of accountability.

To BB posters from civil society organizations, would it be correct to
presume that your postings represent your
organizations/constituencies/funders/clients/members' views or your personal
views? If the latter, i.e., primarily personal views, would it be fair to
presume that one cannot then also adopt a discourse of speaking in the
interests of others¹? For example, when some people (like Gurstein) posts,
it seems unclear to me whose specific interests are being represented. Is
Gurstein speaking as an sanctioned citizen of Canada, a public intellectual,
a spokesperson for a specific community, etc? Also, it has been difficult
from a research perspective to determine the extent to which funding sources
(be they philanthropic, personal resources, work support, or otherwise)
influence BB posters¹ viewpoints and positions. For instance, while some BB
contributors do work to secure funding for others to travel to the various
locations where your work together gets done, others find ways to support
their own travel. I¹m curious about the privilege inherent in being able to
find funds for others or for oneself to do such travel. To what extent it
there recognition of privilege in terms of voice in your deliberations?

To Michael specifically, related to your inline¹ contributions below, for
research purposes, where might I find your own definitions, articulations of
principles in clear and unambiguous terms? Also, what deliberative processes
contributed to their construction? Finally, in your IG work, to whom/what
constituency, place, institution, community, client, employer etc. are you
yourself primarily accountable?

Thank you,
Becky Lentz, PhD
Assistant Professor of Communication Studies
Department of Art History/Communication Studies
McGill University
853 Sherbrooke Street West, Arts Building, W-265
Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0G5
Fax 514.398.8557
http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs

From:  michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To:  michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date:  Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM
To:  Untitled <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
Subject:  [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re:
Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint
recommendations

> Inline
>  
> 
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:32 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits]
> Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>  
> On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote:
> I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems.
> However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making
> progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant.
> 
> I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that we
> hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of that model
> of which - here's the point - proponents of multi-stakeholderism have
> themselves been highly critical!
> [MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment upon there is no definition, no
> articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can respond to and
> yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want
> to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. Maybe it
> is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a
> bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buycheap) or maybe it is a
> calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the
> global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and
> legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of
> global governance of which the Internet is only oneinternational public
> health, food and nutrition, international resource management, environmental
> regulation and so on are others. To accomplish this the proponents from the
> USG, from the WEF, from Google etc. provide a sop to Civil Society and gain
> their compliance and along with it a degree of  legitimation by giving them
> the illusion of effective participation (the outcome of NetMundial anyone
>  
> An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone¹s measure and one that is particularly
> disgusting because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part
> thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or even
> knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC are you
> listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to provide
> voice for. 
> 
> They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these
> implementations have been fiercely resisted.  Do I even need to mention this?
> Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep
> maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that
> civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder
> Internet governance?
> 
> Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF, which
> is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which reiterates
> criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the multi-stakeholder model that we
> have been repeating endlessly for almost a decade:
> 
> bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/
> [MG>] I/we/the JNC etc. are not commenting on the various ³immature
> implementations² of MSism but rather on MSism as a governance model meant to
> supplant, supersede, replace democracy as the aspirational model for
> governance in modern society.
> 
> The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be
> attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for abandoning the
> ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because they haven't yet been
> achieved.  Their achievement will be the work of decades, not years.
> [MG>] yes the replacement of a model of governance that has taken millennia to
> build and cost the lives of thousands of brave folks and may yet cost the
> lives of even more (see for example the streets of Hong Kong  BTW, the young
> protestors in Hong Kong aren¹t protesting for multi-stakeholderism where the
> dominant corporate barons of contemporary China can and will sit at the table
> with the dominant (civil society?) party structures and dominant governmental
> structures to determine the fate of the Hong Kong people, that is what they
> have already! They are putting their lives, bodies and futures on the line for
> DEMOCRACY, the rule of the people by the people.
> 
> Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism is not
> democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if participants in
> multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then everybody, they are
> "elites".  This reflects a very shallow conception of democracy, which for
> example excludes deliberative democratic practices where in which we attempt
> to include all affected perspectives, rather than all individuals.
> [MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table (apart from
> the bizarre flourish of calling it ³Participatory Democracy²--I can call my
> cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn¹t make him any less of a cat or any
> more of dog) doesn¹t ³represent² anyone other than those who show up or are
> allowed to show up and through them the interests that they represent. BTW,
> I¹m all in favour of Deliberative (and Participatory for that matter)
> Democracy, the problem is that neither of these bears any relationship at all
> either to the current practices or ³theories² of MSism.
> 
> As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to date.
> But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme that underlies
> the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is really nothing more
> than to realise democratic principles on an international level where nation
> states are no longer an adequate fit.
> [MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling it we really
> are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation state in this
> context.  Democracy began outside of nation states, certainly developed within
> the context of nation states but is neither by definition nor by necessary
> practice confined within the framework of nation states.  BTW I completely
> agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit between democratic
> accountability and traditional nation state structures and as I mentioned, in
> what I think was my first contribution to this thread, I am extremely
> interested in collaborating with others in exploring alternative strategies
> for democratic practice which better fit with the opportunities and risks of
> the globalized Internet era.
> 
> We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here
> that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is on
> this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where they
> can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of can work
> on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment.
> [MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you like, they
> just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are commenting on
>  
> M
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://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: 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/20141025/8654e427/attachment.htm>