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

[Michael Gurstein]

As it happens I agree with quite a lot of what Milton says below but the
issues emerge from what he doesn't say...

Certainly, current modalities of democratic governance don't easily
translate into the global sphere and certainly there are significant
challenges at all levels--conceptual, practical, logistical, operational in
developing a functional democratic governance for the Internet and overall
for our increasingly globalized set of dilemmas and policy requirements.
What he doesn't say is that "democracy" is as much or more of an aspiration
and a direction--a normative foundation for how one works to respond to
those challenges.  In that context MSism is a competitive set of norms and
practices -- one which seeks to put the ultimate power for decision making
not, as in "democracy", "in the hand of the people", but rather wishes to
reserve that power for self-identified elites, those who are in control of
the existing status quo.

I certainly wouldn't and I don't think the JNC would overall suggest that
I/we had definitive solutions here but we do know that the quite visible
attempt to impose a MSist solution without any broad based and inclusive
consultation, without a clear articulation of what MSism means, of how it
might operate in practice (note there has been no answer to my repeated
requests for a response to the quite specific examples existing MS practical
implementations to which I pointed) is not the way to go.  

I've said this before and I'll repeat this (and hopefully as George/Nick are
suggesting we can move on) people of good will should be spending their
efforts on trying to figure out how to achieve a governance of the Internet
that serves the interests and provides benefits to all, that enhances the
capacity for individual and communal self-governance and empowerment, that
supports personal liberties and social justice. The attempt by power and
wealth to seize control of the Internet via MSism for their own purposes and
aided and abetted by collaborators in academic, "civil society" and
elsewhere is something that must be resisted.

I have no doubt that a truly functional system of Internet Governance that
was serving the public good would be one which included a significant degree
of multistakeholder input and involvement, it would be ridiculous to say
otherwise; but to insist as so many here (and elsewhere) are doing, that the
fundamental structures of global (Internet) governance should be MS in form
is to deny the dignity of all for the benefit of the few.

M  

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: March 9, 2015 12:35 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow;
wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
"Connecting the Dots Conference"

Wolfgang

Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the
problem. It is more fundamental.

I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a
dozen times, if not more. 
As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very
meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in
a globalized environment. 

Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and
limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that
verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral
machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also
LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect
individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various
branches of government.   

None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet.
There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution
dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state,
etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences
of a global population. The territorial division of populations into
distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own
pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European
parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of
possible examples. 

Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of
these things: 

A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy"
is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it.
Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of
course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy 

B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing
states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the
classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage
which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not
internally democratic

C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of
the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But
if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will
take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When
MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of
the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what
law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? 

I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but
the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented
by B. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- 
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; 
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>