[bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder (was: UNESCO)

[JOSEFSSON Erik]

Thanks Marcin! I actually think that's Popper's idea[1] too :-)

But then again, Popper never saw a real flamewar on a mailing list!

On the other hand, I think the Romans said that slavery has nothing to do with freedom since suicide is not prohibited.

***

For the academics and policy nerds on the list, I recommend the JURI hearing on administrative procedures in the EU and the US:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/juri/events.html

I think it might help put "internet governance" into perspective.

Best regards.

//Erik

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q="Popper's idea that democracy allows us to change our leaders and laws without violence and bloodshed"
________________________________________
From: Marcin Cieslak [saper at saper.info]
Sent: Thursday 5 March 2015 10:36
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JOSEFSSON Erik
Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Multistakeholder (was: UNESCO)

(trimming addresses)

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:

> I think Popper once said you should avoid discussions on
> definitions. They tend to turn into viciously circular infinite
> regressions. That said, we have problems with lots of concepts and
> phrases like for example "Everyone should have the same rights
> online as offline". Rights implies enforcement, enforcement requires
> a judiciary, judiciary needs a legislator, legislator needs...
> democratic accountability.

As somebody who worked with elections let me assume a very minimal
definition of democracy: It's a system, in which when things go wrong
an unsatisfied majority can overthrow the rulers in a peaceful manner,
usually by voting them down.

To me, if a system does not meet this criteria, it is not democratic.
You need a revolution to change things.

Once I told Polish PM, Mr Donald Tusk, a simple thing: "Sir, I am
afraid we have to assume that the Republic of Poland has no sovereignity
over the Internet". (We were discussing "illegal online gambling" or so).

Taking the above into consideration the way I think about it now is that
all the stakeholders needed to realize they nobody (yet?) has an actual
veto power over the network. So you had to take a step back and
see that you cannot exercise your power alone.

Multistakeholder model to me started as a way for governments,
corporations and activits to exchange some views, more
a communication and education effort rather than any "decision making".
Maybe it is just the way to *prevent* unilateral ruling by
any of the parties alone.

Nobody can say they truly represent "the users", or the connected
community. Nobody currently holds the power to say "things
go wrong, let's stop". Finding some majority (or even
a large coherent group) is an illusion.

I like the word "democratic" a lot but I am not sure where
it should go in this context. Don't get be started on participation,
representation and all those things that maybe few percent
of Internet community enjoy in their daily lives.

Marcin Cieślak
*mostly just lurking here*