[bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

[Michael Gurstein]

Wolfgang,

The issues that you mention of interest to CS are of course important and
should be addressed by CS in all cases, but there is also the overall
necessity to ensure that the broad framework of decision making and the
normative structures which underlie this are supportive of the general good
(including of course, civil society).  

The problem is that in the MS model there is no one to protect the public
interest... as was quite evident in this UNESCO instance where the entire
process seems to have been captured by MSists from the very beginning
(surely a framing in terms of democratic values and social justice is a
minimum expectation). 

As I think is quite evident in this particular instance as with others where
a MS approach is allowed to frame the discussion, it is not clear at all
that the general good is being or will be pursued.

M
 
-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: March 7, 2015 9:37 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

This discussion is bizarr.

Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity
building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they
communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a
"multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its
respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a
"one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and
decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community
level" what other stakeholders have decided.

Wolfgang

BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I
recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34.
Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says
that states "have rights and responsibilities for international
Internet-related public policy issues".
The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With
other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their
governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public
policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this
is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The
NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking
Innovation is needed. 




I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and
role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on
how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet
something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been
advocating for a long time.

 

Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the
definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of
US foreign policy.  Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient
comfort to "force" it into international documents.

 

The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism,
a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed,
shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition
either in theory or in practice.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
[mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still
needs to be developed.

 

Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include
certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the
UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector
of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical
issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any
elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were
not taken up at all.

 

Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have
no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept
of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of
the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work
for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of
the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into
international documents.

 

Wolfgang Benedek

 

 

 

 

Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:

 

>And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy"  it wasn't simply a

>matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but

>rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote

>"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".

> 

>M

> 

>-----Original Message-----

>From:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org

>[ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert 

>Klein

>Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM

>To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony

>of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

> 

> 

>On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang

>( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)

>wrote:

>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the

>> dots: Options for future action  in Paris I think it is important to

>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to

>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the

>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and

>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.

>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the

>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in

>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly

>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated

>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to

>> deepen their understanding.

>> 

>> Wolfgang Benedek

>> 

> 

>Dear Mr. Benedek,

> 

>thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only

>formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only

>partly included."

> 

>I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar

>importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would

>appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could

>share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only

>partially, included.

> 

>Thanks in advance,

> 

>Norbert Klein

>Cambodia

> 

> 

> 

>