[bestbits] A simple question for JNC members

[Norbert Bollow]

Hello David

JNC hereby replies to your question as follows:

Your question may, as you describe it, be a “simple” one. However what
you are asking about is really a difficult topic. We believe that a
quite significant amount of innovation in the area of governance models
is going to be needed in order to achieve an acceptable solution.

In point 18 of our Delhi Declaration (which is the foundational document
of JNC; see http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration ) this is
expressed as follows:

  Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
  Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
  appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of
  the Internet that are democratic and participative. These must
  be anchored to the UN system, and include innovative methods
  for ongoing and deep participation of non-governmental actors
  in policy making processes. Participating non-governmental
  actors must in turn be subject to appropriate transparency
  requirements, in particular regarding sources of funding as
  well as membership and decision-making processes.

Also relevant to your question is our recent statement “Governing the
global Internet – is the status quo the only option?”, available at
http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf .

Further, we are working towards a more well-developed position in this
area, and we plan to publish a significant document on this topic in the
near future.

We thank you for your interest in our work.

On behalf of JNC,
greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)



On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:54:57 +0800
David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> 	... what form of international governance do you think should
> be used for Internet governance issues, or any other issues for that
> matter? Democracy seems to be the guiding principle here, and it
> seems clear you only consider direct or representative democratic
> principles valid, rather than the 'decisions are made by those who
> show up' nature of most MS fora. 
> 
> If that is the issue, then exiting multi-lateral fora, such as the
> ITU, which obviously allow equal voting from nations with extremely
> undemocratic political systems, such as China, KSA, etc. would seem
> to be very problematic. And that is before you consider issues such
> as whether even the way in which representatives are appointed even
> by democratic nations is truly democratic - often technical
> representatives may be employees of state or private enterprises, for
> example. And besides, these fora rely on consensus anyway, which
> seems to be undemocratic in JNC thinking unless we are effectively
> getting consensus of the entire populace. And multi-lateral
> institutions have a far worse record for excluding the general
> populace, excluding protest and activism, etc than multi-stakeholder
> ones do (indeed, the de facto position is that many MS institutions
> admit literally anyone, while most multi-lateral institutions by
> default exclude almost everyone, admitting only those authorised by
> their state). 
> 
> Multi-lateral negotiations between even between only democratic
> nations seem problematic too, as examples such as the TTPA, TTIP, etc
> are closed, secretive, and disliked and considered undemocratic by
> apparently everybody, including JNC members. It could, of course, be
> claimed that while those examples are bad, some theoretical better
> multi-lateral process restricted to democratic nations might be good
> - but unless some clear articulation of what this better process
> would, and how it could be realistically achieved, is made, this is
> just the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - every example of negotiations
> between democratic nations that is closed, secretive, exclusionary,
> and undemocratic is somehow just an aberration that doesn't undermine
> the theory. 
> 
> So, is the JNC position only a critique of existing government forms,
> or is there an form of transnational governance that would actually
> satisfy the principles they espouse? Is this form of transnational
> governance an existing one, or is it something that exists only in
> theoretical terms? What is it? Could you describe examples of
> transnational governance fora that do, or could, satisfy, or come
> close to satisfying, JNC principles?
> 
> [and no, Michael, "I wrote about that on my blog somewhere" is not
> really a good answer to this question (or any other question)]
> 
> I ask from genuine interest. I certainly feel that current MS
> organisations are far from perfect, and could certainly do with
> improvement. But the JNC criticisms of MSism seem largely as if they
> would make things worse (e.g. the main criticism of MSism seems to be
> that commercial orgenisations participate, but this criticism
> directly applied to MS processes would seem to be call to make such
> processes exclusionary rather than open, which seems a terrible
> idea). In general, some JNC criticisms of MSIsm point out some areas
> in which I feel MSism could certainly be improved, such as how to
> genuinely broaden participation, but in as far as some of the
> principles seem contradictory, I'm sceptical as to whether any actual
> form of governance could satisfy them better than an improved version
> of MSism. 
> 
> Regards
> 
> David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141031/2173d8dc/attachment.sig>