[bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
JOSEFSSON Erik
erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu
Sun Mar 8 09:08:51 EDT 2015
I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand at http://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions that grew out of technical work on making the internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s
Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a social and political program".
Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance?
Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of connected dots?
//Erik
________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
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>)
[mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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><mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com<mailto: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><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><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><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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><mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto: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<mailto: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<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/20150308/6788603f/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list