[bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Sat Feb 14 04:34:29 EST 2015

Dear parminder,

The amendment was tabled by MEPs Michel Ramon and Julia Reda on behalf of Greens/EFA (see attachment at the bottom of the mail in the mail archive):

http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2015-February/000209.html

I am happy that you find it sane.

I do appreciate your points on 'post democratic ideologies'. Actually, if it would not have been for the exchange of views on these matters on this list and others, I believe that AM3 to Paragraph 6 would not have been tabled at all. Would there have been more time than 5 days for you and others who find AM3 sane to give it more public support, it could maybe have received more votes, and, also, the votes could maybe even have been recorded per individual MEP (a so called Roll Call Vote could have been requested).

Maybe you would find it useful to have a look at the possible strategic advantage of being more in sync with the mechanics of the EP through tools like AT4AM? Please then have a look at the this video:

https://vimeo.com/17598642

and the first instance of AT4AM running on a standalone server, here with two examples of documents (the first one is hand made, second is probably scripted) that it could be relevant to amend (not only directives and resolutions need patches):

http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=http://erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/proposal-for-an-update-of-the-rules-of-procedure-for-the-greens-efa-staff-association.xml
http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=6

Further exchange on this is welcome at https://at4am.eu

Best regards.

//Erik

________________________________
From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 10:00
To: JOSEFSSON Erik; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

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<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto: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<http://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<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:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

____________________________________________________________
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:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150214/7d0dfef1/attachment.htm>