[bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Sat Feb 14 04:00:30 EST 2015

Hi Erik

I can fully understand and appreciate your particular point and focus, 
from the vantage you are looking it from.

On my part, I just used a particular element of the process to make a 
rather different point, which remains a very important one in 
international IG discourse.

Please also see inline.

On Saturday 14 February 2015 02:17 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:
> Dear parminder,
>
> 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.

Just eager; which political group is this, becuase I do consider the 
amendment proposal to be very sane.

> Happens all the time.

Maybe it happens. Nonetheless I am concerned that the majority actually 
rejected a proposal for explicitly making MS models democratically 
accountable. It says something to me, which I am troubled with.

parminder

> 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?
>
> Why?
>
> //Erik
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> The final resolution did not contain the amendment:
>>
>> www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN
>>
>> 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!
>>>
>>>     //Erik
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 ::
>>
>> 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:
>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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/20150214/581f15cc/attachment.htm>