[bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Mar 8 06:16:41 EDT 2015
And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related
global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that
Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is
happening quite fine?)
If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role
as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal
footing, in Internet-related global policy decision making - that is
enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put
behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people
choke on making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from
simple democratic principles and ideals.
Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are
evident here, which so many find so unsightly?
Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that
they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back
immediately on that.
Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of
differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email
exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions,
and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek
closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise
differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology,
we will be making progress.
parminder
On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20150308/ac95635e/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list