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

[Norbert Bollow]

On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 13:08:51 +0000
JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:

> 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?

I would agree that that "social and political program" is certainly a
program of Internet governance (or more accurately, Information
society governance, since it's broader that just about the Internet).
I also happen to largely agree to that set of ideas, and in fact my
proposal at WisdomTaskForce.org is in fact to a large extent based on
that kind of ideas.

However I would insist that there are Internet governance issues which
require explicit legislative public policy action in addition to what
Eben Moglen describes as the "social and political program" that he is
endorsing. For a bit of discussion of this in relation to the issue of
mass surveillance, see my blogpost "The Internet Social Forum and a
Vision for Actually Achieving The Internet That We Want" at
http://sustainability.oriented.systems/isf-vision/ .

It isn't clear to me whether from the perspective of Eben Moglen's
"social and political program", such democratic legislative action
would be seen as appropriate or not.

If democratic legislative action to resolve conflicts of interest
between the general public and particular interests of corporations,
and/or the interests of the surveillance/industrial complex (by
resolving these conflicts of interest in favor of the public interest
on the basis of human rights) is not accepted as appropriate, then I
would not not accept such a "social and political program", nor see it
as pro-democratic, no matter what good and desirable aspects it might
otherwise have.

Greetings,
Norbert