[bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Guru
Guru at ITforChange.net
Thu Mar 5 23:04:06 EST 2015
a thought provoking definition of MSism - system of, by, and for the
lobbyists (and if I may add + fronts for the lobbyists + few innocents)
Guru
On Friday 06 March 2015 09:17 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> Yes, yes, yes, for all the talk I tend to agree with Michael
> Gurstein's summary below, msism appears to be a bit of a "pig in a
> poke" as the expression goes (an offer to buy something in a bag which
> you can't look into, only guess that something [good] is in there.)
>
> Further, from some of my observation it seems disturbing even on the
> surface. For one thing there's no indication of how a conflict of
> interest is handled. Worse, a conflict of interest seems to become a
> legitimate interest and enfranchised equal.
>
> Fully admitting my understanding may be imperfect even if just because
> understanding may be impossible when a concept is ill-defined the more
> I hear the more I can't help but think that this is an attempt to
> codify a system we have developed without really any rules or
> regulation in the United States Congress.
>
> We call it a system of, by, and for the lobbyists.
>
> Anyone may lobby the US Congress of course, it is one of the most open
> processes in the world. It does tend to favor oil lobbyists and auto
> lobbyists and drug manufacturer lobbyists etc but nonetheless if you
> wish you may compete for attention as a homeless lobbyist or single
> mother lobbyist (e.g.) and good luck to you! But nothing prevents such
> participation and indeed many try. It is democracy red in tooth and
> claw!
>
> There is one critical difference, however. Lobbyists must indirect
> through congressional representatives who are actually elected by
> their constituents, one person one vote.
>
> This system seems to eliminate that annoying middleman (middleperson?)
> and just lets the lobbyists introduce and vote on legislation directly
> as interest, i.e., stakeholder, groups.
>
> I am skeptical of everything I wrote above because surely this can't
> be the case -- everyone here is far too intelligent to want to
> reinvent the notoriously interested US lobby system as an actual
> governing structure -- so please disabuse me of these silly notions!
>
> From: "Michael Gurstein"<gurstein at gmail.com>
>> Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in discursive=
>> rather than declarative mode...
>>
>> =20
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org]=20
>> Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM
>> To: Michael Gurstein
>> Cc:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting t=
>> he Dots Conference"
>>
>> =20
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a global gover=
>> nance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite unclear as to w=
>> hich of the variety of stakeholder models is being proposed at any particul=
>> ar time or in any particular context, which of course is one of the major s=
>> ources of hesitation that I have with these kinds of proposals. Before ent=
>> ering into a decision making process and particularly one that will have re=
>> al and potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the ru=
>> les of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are they account=
>> able to and how, what overall structures of accountability will be in place=
>> , what decision making rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so =
>> on. Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it is=
>> rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into the meme an=
>> d then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: what will actually occ=
>> ur in a specific decision making context. My own experiences in attempting=
>> to participate in MS processes as evidenced in my blog give some indicatio=
>> n at a micro-level of what is involved.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they=
>> will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditio=
>> ns of presumed harmony and good will. My observation is that MS processes =
>> do not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major proble=
>> m given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involv=
>> ed specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably d=
>> ifferent interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kin=
>> ds. My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or str=
>> ess it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged=
>> insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) an=
>> d proceed as though nothing had occurred =E2=80=93 in this way they are ach=
>> ieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflec=
>> ts nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling =
>> (and satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to=
>> divergent positions and interests.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by e=
>> lites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most =
>> cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of eff=
>> ective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites=
>> since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these processes=
>> in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the absence of =
>> some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing accountability,=
>> transparency etc. In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking abo=
>> ut decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of do=
>> llars of value. Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil s=
>> ociety (or government such as those found in many LDC=E2=80=99s for that ma=
>> tter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be de=
>> ployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and domin=
>> ant interests.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government=
>> (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has b=
>> een violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stak=
>> eholder' started to look like a paradigm.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts =
>> to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tos=
>> sing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better=E2=
>> =80=A6=20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic =
>> pluralism.=20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the =E2=80=9Cdemo=
>> cratic=E2=80=9D comes in=E2=80=A6 perhaps you could explain.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way=
>> as democratic processes.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the p=
>> ossibility of rectification. With legitimized control by powerful (corpora=
>> te) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification. Tho=
>> se interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize th=
>> eir individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my gover=
>> nment, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired =
>> ends =E2=80=93 how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or=E2=80=A6 for =
>> Google I can=E2=80=99t even find a phone number let alone how I might possi=
>> bly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree tha=
>> t we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountabil=
>> ity and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic d=
>> ecision making=E2=80=94but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have =
>> been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an=
>> undefined =E2=80=9Cpig in a poke=E2=80=9D doesn=E2=80=99t seem to me to be=
>> a very good social trade off to be making.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to=
>> read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping t=
>> o shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundame=
>> ntal principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system o=
>> f government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate u=
>> s and legitimize powerful interests.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and struc=
>> tures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. =
>> Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or b=
>> een misused or misdirected but that doesn=E2=80=99t mean that the aspiratio=
>> n of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is=
>> not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly reject=
>> ed in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) e=
>> lites.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, e=
>> ven if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. An=
>> d I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Pe=
>> rhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
>>
>> =20
>>
>> [MG] yes..
>>
>> =20
>>
>> BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as a=
>> n appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance.=
>> Is this the official position of APC?
>>
>> =20
>>
>> M
>>
>> =20
>>
>> Shawna
>>
>> =20
>>
>> On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
>>> =20
>>> Just a couple of things...
>>> =20
>>> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its=20
>>> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been=20
>>> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a=20
>>> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to=20
>>> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the=20
>>> context of Internet Governance. APC could (and in my opinion
>>> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of=20
>>> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
>>> =20
>>> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear=20
>>> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of=20
>>> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear=20
>>> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on=20
>>> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a=20
>>> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who=20
>>> signed on to this agreement.
>>> =20
>>> And please be aware that this is not trivial...
>>> =20
>>> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see=20
>>> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide=20
>>> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in=20
>>> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy"=20
>>> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of=20
>>> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global=20
>>> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
>>> =20
>>> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance=20
>>> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC and others means that the=20
>>> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most=20
>>> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely=20
>>> ignored, of course further empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is=20
>>> this APC's preferred position?
>>> =20
>>> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action=20
>>> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in=20
>>> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others=20
>>> who are so blithely jumping on the MS
>>> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their=20
>>> own normative structures...?
>>> =20
>>> Best,
>>> =20
>>> M
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan=20
>>> [<mailto:shawna at apc.org> mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:2=
>> 3 AM To: Michael=20
>>
>>> Gurstein Cc:<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbit=
>> s.net;=20
>>
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sub=
>> ject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at=20
>>
>>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> =20
>>> Dear Michael,
>>> =20
>>> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the=20
>>> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your=20
>>> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of=20
>>> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
>>> =20
>>> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been=20
>>> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various=20
>>> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it=20
>>> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support=20
>>> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively=20
>>> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights=20
>>> Council.
>>> =20
>>> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing=20
>>> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced=20
>>> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation=20
>>> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
>>> governance:
>>> =20
>>> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a=20
>>> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance=20
>>> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva=20
>>> Declaration, for =E2=80=9Cthe attainment of a more peaceful, just and=20
>>> prosperous world.=E2=80=9D
>>> =20
>>> (from our submission:=20
>>> <http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf>=
>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf
>>
>>> )
>>> =20
>>> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
>>> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC=20
>>> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
>>> =20
>>> Shawna
>>> =20
>>> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by=20
>>>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to=20
>>>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of=20
>>>> "multistakeholderism=20
>>>> < <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-=
>> neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>https://gurstein.wordpress.=
>> com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-interne=
>> t-governance/>"
>>
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>> =20
>> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
>>
>>>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of=20=20
>>>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning"=20
>>>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the=20
>>>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally=20
>>>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil=20
>>>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide=20
>>>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I=20
>>>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent=20
>>>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being=20
>>>> evolved") in this sphere.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
>>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own=20
>>>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> M
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> -----Original Message----- From:=20
>>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits-request at lists.bes=
>> tbits.net
>>
>>>> [<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits-request at l=
>> ists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette=20
>>
>>>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc=
>> :<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>
>>>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting=20
>>>> the Dots Conference"
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Dear all
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Just an explanation and some context.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to=20
>>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and=20
>>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of=20
>>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC=20
>>>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
>>>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which=20
>>>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any=20
>>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the=20
>>>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked=20
>>>> directly to the Study.
>>>> =20
>>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to=20
>>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study=20
>>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the=20
>>>> discussion.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really=20
>>>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to=20
>>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the=20
>>>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for=20
>>>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the=20
>>>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very=20
>>>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so=20
>>>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly=20
>>>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This=20
>>>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be=20
>>>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of=20
>>>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back=20
>>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having=20
>>>> 'democratic'
>>>> =20
>>>> in front of multistakeholder.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for=20=20
>>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into=20
>>>> the text.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder',=20
>>>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they=20
>>>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and=20
>>>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could=20=20
>>>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference=20
>>>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not=20
>>>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that=20
>>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but=20
>>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the=20
>>>> number of requests for putting it in.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated=20
>>>> in this way.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as=20=20
>>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in=20
>>>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the=20
>>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that=20
>>>> anonymity is illegitimate.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in=20
>>>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the=20
>>>> gains vs. the losses.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.=20
>>>> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in the=20
>>>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its=20
>>>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people=20
>>>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn,=20
>>>> participate and influence internet-related debates with=20
>>>> policy-makers.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know=20
>>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they=20
>>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or=20
>>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be=20
>>>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Anriette
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>>>> =20
>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>=
>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>>> <<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>>> =20
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>>>> =20
>>>>>>> have global significance?
>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>> With pleasure. This is why:
>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>>> <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to>=
>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to
>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>> t
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is=20
>>>>> JNC's
>>>> =20
>>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position=20
>>>>> of
>>>> =20
>>>>> JNC.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>>>> =20
>>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human=20
>>>>> right,
>>>> =20
>>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>>>> =20
>>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be=20
>>>>> democratic.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>>>> =20
>>>>> follows:
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>>>> =20
>>>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>>>> =20
>>>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>>>> =20
>>>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>>>> =20
>>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global=20
>>>>> governance
>>>> =20
>>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>>>> =20
>>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>>>> =20
>>>>> democratic *and* participative.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
>>>> =20
>>>>> our goal, which he describes as =E2=80=9Climited type of government-led
>>>> =20
>>>>> rulemaking=E2=80=9D. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>>>> =20
>>>>> participative.
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> Is that so hard to understand???
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>>>> =20
>>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
>>>> =20
>>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite=20
>>>>> full
>>>> =20
>>>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response=20=20
>>>>> (which
>>>> =20
>>>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm> http://justnetcoali=
>> tion.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>> =20
>>>>> Norbert
>>>> =20
>>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>>> =20
>>>>> <http://JustNetCoalition.org> http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> =20
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> =20
>>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> <<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcauc=
>> us.org>
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> =20
>>>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubs=
>> cribing
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> =20
>>>>> <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance> http://lists.igcaucus.org/=
>> info/governance
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> =20
>>>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> Translate this email:<http://translate.google.com/translate_t> http:/=
>> /translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You=20=20
>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To un=
>> subscribe or change your settings,=20
>>
>>>> visit:<http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestb=
>> its.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>>
>> =20
>>
>> iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+NckAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKwg8L/iI+89MYOM+3ZTorMwdy4lYs
>>
>> uc6P2Kw7uVJt1Soqmk5GqsRp4UQAUUAa4DI/GwjHVf6kFd1iH0y6xle2bAMckv7N
>>
>> YZkxCHbs7mo2lmzGf/rXK82RitCvsb39o2b3QavcLiETQMkpDgYebeaOCNftz/vY
>>
>> uRVUioALPdwAYZQTp7SwI5d6h2WFzzPKkDyJUx4AysCHGRomVV4v0GOeOiOT2lBN
>>
>> coyCfZInGmupR6nfmlxW+MeTRscmueAKBWpu3nbDoA1PU4wurxGVfq/u5vbD88Mo
>>
>> VqNBJEit7ctS41CQjTM0/f2Yu2LpbhWcR4Ck8dJBKcQbeL7YtPiec5dNbVcnjdc6
>>
>> mf6w4xfvC5o5ka9w9DSAJWKIwWxYR12yoUUZxwtfHzGVESNvudYNxUcRt1pLkrd8
>>
>> H5+Z/mF/E0yHfiDObVIbVWat30fMgGpPbVKFHahp+Jln9fTGCkxmxxztGGIofh4V
>>
>> Ix9G7lqt+pksPwDcU03p78DorIPavz1IhFjlSAybvQ=3D=3D
>>
>> =3DL6ab
>>
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150306/e2688eee/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list