AW: [governance] Principles

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi Jean Louis,
 
like always: if you try to be short your produce misunderstandings. My reference point is the "round table" philosophy we had  in 1989 after the collapse of the German Democratic Repuiblic and which was - at least in my eyes - a very high form of a participatory democracy. This was killed within months by our west German brothers who said that such an involvement of all stakeholders is not needed in a representative democracy. WSIS has proofed that the involvement of non-govenrmental stakeholders, in particular civil society, in affairs which had been so far negotiated only by the representatives of governments, is not a bad idea. 
 
The multistakeholder model offers an option to bring all parties on a equal footing into the process of a PDP, case by case. I agree that the existing models (IGF, ICANN) are far away from the ideal, but they are first steps into the right direction. The alternative - back to the intergovernmental treaty system - would be in my eyes a step backwards. This is not an argument against the intergovernmental treaty system (where needed), we need international law and the Charter of the United Nations with its jus cogens principles is a good document. But I see that such a intergovernmental treaty system needs additional (external) checks and balances and has today be embedded into a multistakeholder environment.  The WGIG definition speaks about "shared decision making procedures". At the end this will lead us to a discussion about the meaing of national (governmental) sovereignty in a globalised Internet based world. 
 
It would make sense to start a discussion how to enhance our understanding of "sovereingty" and "self-determination" (two jus cogens principles from the UN Charter) in the Internet age. How a "shared sovereignty" (some people call it "collaborative sovereignty") could look like? Is this only for governments or should civil society and other Non-governmental stakeholders be part of this enhanced understanding of sovereignty? 
 
Wolfgang

 
________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jean-Louis FULLSACK
Gesendet: Mo 01.10.2012 10:51
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; parminder
Betreff: re: [governance] Principles



Whoow !

 

Wolfgang Wrote

 

<Wolfgang:
<Multistakeholderism *IS* the highest form of participatory democracy

 

What's the next step ? Maybe

Multistakeholderism will BE democracy 

 

Not for me, neither in its current "version" nor in its possible future

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack





	> Message du 01/10/12 09:52
	> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
	> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "parminder" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org
	> Copie à : 
	> Objet : [governance] Principles
	> 
	> Parminder:
	> multistakeholderism (whats wrong with participatory democracy?)
	> 
	> Wolfgang:
	> Multistakeholderism *IS* the highest form of participatory democracy
	> 
	> Parminder: 
	> improvements to internationalism & national laws
	> 
	> Wolfgang:
	> To errect (national) legal barriers for the free flow of information among people is a bad idea and contrary to individual human right to freedom of expression. Governments have an obligation under international law to guarantee access to and the distribution of information "regardless of frontiers". To undermine the borderless nature of the Internet and to introduce a system for Internet communication similar to global travel arrangements, (where you need a permission (visa) to leave or enter a country) brings us back into the cold war of the 20th century and would have bad and sad economic and social consequences in particular for individuals in developing countries. 
	> 
	> In this context I repeat my proposal to start in Baku with the work on a global "Multistakeholder Framework of Committment" on Internet Governance and Internet Freedom (FoC) which could take on board all the ideas and proposals expressed in the 20+ Internet Governance Principles declarations, resolutions and guidelines which has been adopted in the last two years by IBSA, Shanghai, OECD, CoE, OSCE, UNESCO and numerous non-governmental platforms, including the IGF Dynamic Coalition in Rights and Principles. The message from Baku should be to invite the MAG to form a WGIG like multistakeholder group of experts (during its February 2013 meeting in Paris) and to draft until the 8th IGF a first outline with the aim to have a substantial draft for high level discussion at the 9th IGF in 2014 and to adopt such a FoC by acclamation at the 10th IGF in 2015. 
	> 
	> wolfgang
	> 
	> ____________________________________________________________
	> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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