[bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Carlos Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Tue Mar 10 09:54:04 EDT 2015
Was this between you and Suresh? Why post on the list then? We do not
need to know about your mutual secrets... :-)
--c.a.
On 08-03-15 18:34, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
> Suresh,
>
> One question between you and me : are you that familiar with such animal
> as you sound expert with /caqueting/and trolling. I just realize we
> have a lot more to learn from you. Such a cute little animal indeed,
> with only one leg, one eye, one key idea : the world is divided in
> multi-stakeholderism - or should we call it expanded democracy as
> Jeanette defines it- and Multi-la-lateralism. Any strabismus issue? Does
> this animal still have a brain, unless it doesn't need it anymore? We'll
> keep this for the off-line humor chat-room and our MSist freak show.
>
> Thanks for your insight and reflection.
>
> JC
>
>
>
> Le 8 mars 2015 à 16:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>
>> Amazing. A third way that still works out in favor of the multilateral
>> advocates
>>
>> If it walks like a multilateral duck, if it quacks like a multilateral
>> duck..
>>
>> On March 8, 2015 9:01:14 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>
>>>> The merits of democracy are not being argued (GREAT NEWS!!) here as
>>>> much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a
>>>> multilateral context in UN circles.
>>>>
>>> Solely? No. This is solely your assumption.
>>> In a multilateral context? No, wrong again. One problem that do have
>>> MSists is their dear denial of any role to governments. MSits
>>> favorite sport is governmental bashing (except for USG, the good guy
>>> of their story).
>>> In UN circles. No. Most of its use happens outside the UN, in civil life.
>>>
>>>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.
>>>>
>>> Would it be "through consensus" democracies would have gone no way. A
>>> majority, made by honest voting in a clear constitutional framework,
>>> can only exercise the will of the people. A consensus can be a good
>>> warning paving the way to a new collective rule, still a vote might
>>> often turn it into something that will be respected, transparent and
>>> accountable. Consensus is a very vague process, easily flawed. Rough
>>> consensus is even worse. Again governance is no to be built on
>>> techies's philosophy of daily practice. Consensus related to
>>> governance fits to capos and rubber barons. Not to public policy
>>> making (which is where we do have a fight).
>>>
>>>> The question here is what political significance will get attached
>>>> to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that
>>>> explicitly favors multilateral governance structures.
>>>>
>>> Especially when its very existence is denied by MSits who, amusingly,
>>> claimed to be MSits for the sake of democracy. MSits know better what
>>> the people need.
>>>
>>> No, JNC is not favoring Multilateral governance. This another
>>> assumption is a lie. JNC is advocating a third way. Most MSists are
>>> bodyguards to the status-quo. We see it in any list, any venue. We
>>> have seen it again during the connecting the dots, or the Dotting the
>>> I's, as Louis Pouzin put it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 8 mars 2015 à 14:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>>>
>>>> The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the
>>>> tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context
>>>> in UN circles.
>>>>
>>>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as
>>>> democratic. The question here is what political significance will
>>>> get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a
>>>> grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures.
>>>>
>>>> On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik
>>>> <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu
>>>> <mailto: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 athttp://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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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]
>>>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>>>>>> To: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> 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>
>>>>>>> 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> 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> 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
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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:
>>>> 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:
>> 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.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list