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

Tue Mar 10 03:44:22 EDT 2015

David,

I was at a conference recently on "Cultures of Accountability: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Current and Future Accountability Mechanisms". If anyone wants to dig into the cultural discourse I am sure Brendan Van Alsenoy and Fanny Coudert would be happy to help.

What I brought with me from that conference was that "democratic accountability" was referred to as a kind of implicit last resort when many of the speakers gave witness of how terribly bad accountability mechanisms worked in their disciplines of study respectively.

I think that the issues here are far more complex than navigating among definitions of "democracy", "transparency" or "openness". I think Milton is right in the sense that most thinking in this field is a confused mosh of perceptions.

Still, every one of us knows exactly what Chaplin was talking about.

Best regards.

//Erik

________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 08:11
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Milton summarises the problems with the use of the term democracy without further explanation far better than I did.

+1

On 10 Mar 2015, at 3:34 am, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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