[bestbits] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Mon Mar 9 12:12:19 EDT 2015

A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that language is excellent.

On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask yourself: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over the form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum?

This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achieving the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, and bigger than technology. 

I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decade of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word.

As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade, to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest away from actually benefiting any real people's lives. 

I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost.

On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
> 
> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. 
> 
> 
> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation of 9.1.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> 
>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR
>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in
>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the
>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country,
>> periodic elections etc
> 
> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in
> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not
> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its
> government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
> 
>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR
>> states that rights can be restricted for the sake of the general
>> welfare in a democratic society. As the UDHR is not a binding
>> convention there is no authoritative interpretation of this phrase by
>> an international human rights body to my knowledge.
> 
> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word
> "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say,
> certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights
> instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14,
> Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,
>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing
>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar
>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and
>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression
>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
>> 
>> Wolfgang Benedek
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of
>>>> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything
>>>> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in,
>>>> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law
>>>> enforcement that governments have a special role intrinsically by
>>>> law). JNC denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your
>>>> interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you
>>>> discuss would mean.
>>> 
>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a
>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post
>>> about this when it is available.
>>> 
>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting
>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the
>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in
>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)
>>> http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150309/5c1b15c7/attachment.sig>