[bestbits] Gurstein's critiques...

Sat Oct 25 19:57:59 EDT 2014

Hi Becky,

Almost all of your questions can be answered through a reading of my blog
where I've been discussing these issues in numerous posts and for several
years off and on 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com 

I'll be delighted to answer specific additional questions as might be useful
"for research purposes" of course. But I would prefer that it be done in the
normal research way with appropriate disclaimers, presentation of sampling
protocols, confidentiality agreements, survey/interview schedules, ethical
conduct compliance forms, you know, that sort of thing. And most importantly
if you are looking at funding sources, something which I would be more than
pleased to provide under the above conditions assuming of course our
esteemed CS colleagues are prepared to do the same. (I'll give you a hint, I
don't get any funding from anyone for IG related stuff. No one offers and I
don't beg. the last time by my recollection was a plane ticket to Baku via
BB (thanks Jeremy and Google. where I shared grotty digs with colleagues via
AirBnB and paid my own local expenses as I recall.

As to why or on whose behalf I'm spending these delightful moments giving
repetitive PoliSci 101 lectures to folks who really ought to know
better-well I really do see it as a labour of love.

M

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Becky Lentz
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 3:08 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Gurstein's critiques...

[MG>] <snip>

To Michael specifically, related to your 'inline' 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 buy-cheap) 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
one-international 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 anyone's 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 "immature
implementations" 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 aren't 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 "Participatory Democracy"--I can
call my cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn't make him any less of a
cat or any more of dog) doesn't "represent" anyone other than those who show
up or are allowed to show up and through them the interests that they
represent. BTW, I'm 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 "theories" 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/20141025/65907611/attachment.htm>