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

Thu Mar 5 10:04:54 EST 2015

Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of "multistakeholderism <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/> " and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning" of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty. 

This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being evolved") in this sphere.

BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own normative structures as I queried in my previous email?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

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 < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> 

>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> 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-t> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-t

>> urn-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> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm

> 

> Greetings,

> Norbert

> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition

>  <http://JustNetCoalition.org> http://JustNetCoalition.org

> 

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>       <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

> To be removed from the list, visit:

>       <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

> 

> For all other list information and functions, see:

>       <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

>       <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

> 

> Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t> http://translate.google.com/translate_t

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150305/b376f465/attachment.htm>