[bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution
erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu
Sat Feb 14 03:47:54 EST 2015
It does not mean much in terms of content that an amendment tabled by a political group with ~7% of the seats in the EP does not get a majority. Happens all the time. One has to be aware of, and work with, the EP internal processes to get Good Stuff through. So, I would not worry much about the rejection of the amendment.
What I do worry about though is that it seems nobody on this list even knew about it until Carolina pinged on 7 February, 4 days before the vote.
Were there no public processes in the IG space preparing for the EP resolution before that ping?
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution
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!
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto: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<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bestbits