[bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Mar 5 07:41:45 EST 2015
Dear Anriette
Respectfully, there sure can be justifications and justifications, but
there are also some solid facts that we must contend with.
The first fact here is about 'social, economic and cultural rights':
First about its cardinal importance - I cant see the 'access' pillar of
UNESCO's interest in IG without a social, economic and cultural rights
framing, it becomes something very different without that framing, which
btw is what both telcos and MNCs like facebook and google want. So,
there is nothing innocent about it. There is a big global political
struggle about what 'access' means in normative terms. (Even telcos
cited the 'access' issue in their opposition to net neutrality!) In
fact, I see even privacy framed in soc and eco rights framing becuase of
the key economic value of data today, and certainly ethics. I can keep
writing on this subject, but I am sure you understand. You might
remember that the framing of communication rights basically arose from
this issue - that negative rights do not suffice to enable people's
communicative power and equity, we need positive rights as well. Whereby
communications rights were framed as against just an exclusive accent on
freedom of expression. And of course UNESCO was at the centre of those
political struggles. Everyone knows that the US has always been solidly
against the eco/soc/cultural rights side of communicative systems, and
in Paris they (again) won, with implicit or explicit support of civil
society groups among others. This is a fact, and we must face it.
We just need to contend with the fact that eco, soc and cultural rights
are not mentioned in the document, even when civil and political rights
are mentioned, as well as the corresponding covenant. As you say
elsewhere in your email, UN documents indeed have continuities of text,
earlier political struggles and so on. And so, the mistakes and loses of
this document will be taken forward. After WSIS, if was the first key IG
doc made in a UN body, and so the losses are huge.
In the circumstances, it is not just a matter of everyone being good and
nice to everyone one else here, there is a political struggle and in my
view a great political loss here. We need to know who always so well
remembers to put FoE and civil/ political rights and who forgets to put
economic and social rights, in framing communication/ information
issues. Who forgot in this particular case, and who ignored. You say,
the proposal to put eco and soc rights came in too late. We, as in JNC,
proposed when we saw the draft. We sure cannot propose earlier. But what
were the drafters doing - well perhaps they need to take more people who
are likely to remember this set of rights! These are real issues. These
cannot just be swept under the carpet because all of us should be nice
to all others of us. We need to know. And we need to be able to tell our
constituencies outside, to whom we are primarily responsible.
Also about the proposal to put this part coming in late, and drafters
wanting a short document, tell me how much time and space it takes to
put a comma at the end of preambular para beginning with "Further
recalled..... " and adding after ...Covenant on Civil and Political
rights just this - "....and the International Covenant on Social,
Economic and Cultural Rights". Especially when whole new points and
sentences have been added to the draft between the last plenary and the
final document! Did those present there as civil society even at that
stage when they discovered that soc and eco rights were missing really
take this issue up with full might? Did anyone there solidly back the
demand. I very much doubt - bec the proof is out there. Why did we not
fully put our foot down. After all we would only be asking what exists
in most UN doc on similar issues, and which was there prominently in the
WSIS documents.
I dont think we should put up excuses that the demand for putting in soc
and eco rights came in late, and UNESCO wanted a short doc, and so on.
This excuse is untenable, in a provable way as I show above. Other long
text were included, and much later.. If it is wrong, and an enormous
political loss, it is so, clearly and bluntly! We must accept it.
The second fact we must contend with is that some civil society people
there joined US and its allies to say 'democratic' has baggage, and all
possible references to 'democracy' were refused. And what I really find
somewhat shocking is that you are sympathetically explaining that view,
although in a most unconvincing manner. Dont you think multistakeholder
has baggage! Why did you not remove that term on the same logic. Do you
not know that there are parties that think even 'human rights' have
baggage. Would you accept such a logic? Who decides what has baggage?
Does this also bespeaks a certain composition of civil society that was
more actively present and involved there. So, should we now start
considering 'democratic' as a likely problematic term. Great progress we
are making! First one needed to fight to get democratic into the
NetMundial document in just one place when multistakeholder is there in
about 30 places. And then comes the meeting at UNESCO - an hallowed UN
body - and here we are told that well in fact 'democratic' is
problematic and has baggage and so let it be completely out.
I dont understand you logic that in Tunis Agenda democratic is always
mentioned with multilateral and therefore is means multilateral . I
thought if a word is mentioned along with another one, it can be taken
that it means something different. At places, all three democratic,
multilateral and multistakeholder are mentioned together in TA. Does
that mean that each of these then is a code word for the other. This is
a very weak and unsustainable logic.
Meanwhile, you know that it is not as you say 'the editing group did
consider it seriously'. When Anita proposed putting 'democratic
dialogue' in a different place, in 5.1, such apparently was the depth of
antipathy to the term 'democratic' that the group quietly included
'public dialogue' not touching the word 'democratic' even here, in a
largely 'innocent' usage. (This in fact was a good opportunity to
assuage those who were demanding the inclusion of the 'democratic term -
a democratic dialogue certainly cannot mean multilateral, or does it ?
But the fact that even this opportunity was not taken shows how solidly
the forces against democracy were entrenched. I simply do not know what
civil society persons on the inside were doing.) This really makes one
extremely alarmed, to see such studious exclusion of the word
'democratic'. It is from this alarm that our extreme concern at what
happened in Paris is pouring out. And you want us to simply accept it as
if nothing happened and move on.
BTW, when you say,"It is a pity that 'democratic was not added, but it
was never really an option' , I do not fully understand. Why you say 'it
was never really an option'. That itself is alarming. Have we reached
such a stage that use of the term 'democratic' is no longer really an
option for global normative texts of IG'. JNC has an analysis of what
is happening here, and we have held it for a long time, with pretty
accurate predictive value, as we see things unfolding like what happened
in Paris. We are not ready to be happy to move on. We intend to dig in
and fight. Social, economic and cultural rights must be restored as key
normative values for the communicative sphere of which the Internet is
today a central element. And governance in all areas, including the
Internet, will be democratic - that must be made clear. We will decry
any effort or move which goes against these, and if needed the actors
responsible. This is a political struggle, not a cocktail party.
There is more, but later.
And I do thank you for your report below.
parminder
On Thursday 05 March 2015 04:05 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Just an explanation and some context.
>
> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>
> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>
> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
> made several editorial suggestions which improved the text) and text
> from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly improved
> weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>
> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
> reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the Study.
> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>
> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
> discussion.
>
> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really an
> option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the NETmundial
> statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for that Norbert) I
> would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning of democratic
> However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular angle to why
> "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the
> word "democratic" is directly linked with the word "multilateral" -
> every time it occurs. This means that people/governments who feel that
> 'multilateral' can be used to diminish the recognition given to the
> importance of multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back
> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
> in front of multistakeholder.
>
> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
> the text.
>
> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', but
> because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>
> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they are
> full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>
> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could insert
> (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>
> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
> number of requests for putting it in.
>
> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
> this way.
>
> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in the
> early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that anonymity
> is illegitimate.
>
> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in documents
> we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains vs. the losses.
>
> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. Supporting
> it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in the global south
> who will put issues that are important to us on its agenda, which will,
> I hope, create the opportunity for more people from civil society,
> particularly from developing countries, to learn, participate and
> influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
>
> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>> have global significance?
>>>
>>>
>>> With pleasure. This is why:
>>>
>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-turn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>
>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position of
>> JNC.
>>
>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>
>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be democratic.
>>
>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>> follows:
>>
>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>
>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>
>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global governance
>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>> democratic *and* participative.
>>
>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is our
>> goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>
>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>> participative.
>>
>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>
>>
>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full of
>> factually false assertions. I have now published my response (which had
>> previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>
>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list