[bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Feb 13 23:02:50 EST 2015
It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically
accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of just
'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.
Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder
model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?
This is a very important question that must be addressed.
It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a
distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS)
models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term
'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular amendment
exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people here have
considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)
When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment
that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread downwards
to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather well
entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such are the
powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One is so
disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum like the
EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use it as one,
that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking promoting of some
very problematic governance models in the global IG space, unmindful of
their impact on democratic traditions.
On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> The final resolution did not contain the amendment:
> The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the
> multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member
> States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further
> strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and
> processes at national, regional and international levels more
> inclusive, transparent and accountable;"
> On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> +1 on Erik suggestion
>> Jeremy, is this still possible?
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik
>> <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu
>> <mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
>> Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:
>> AM 2 (to point 6):
>> "Stresses that it is firmly committed to a *democratically
>> accountable multistakeholder model* of Internet governance; calls
>> upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant
>> stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the
>> multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at
>> national, regional and international levels more inclusive,
>> transparent and accountable;"
>> It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> Public key:https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bestbits