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

Sun Mar 8 05:57:54 EDT 2015

I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and  some other 
emails of a similar kind.

We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the 
circularity with some specifics.

1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism 
(multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used 
in IG docs.

2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an 
impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted 
that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing 
of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do 
so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. 
I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed.

3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus 
on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with 
about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to 
democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people 
playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the 
middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont 
mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes 
into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.

4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at 
the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 
'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the 
whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been 
strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it 
not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner 
about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest 
consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on 
what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very 
clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?

parminder

On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> 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
>   
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150308/bde24433/attachment.htm>