[governance] Principles

Mon Oct 1 08:59:20 EDT 2012

Wolfgang and all,

I`ve just had an opportunity to observe at somewhat close hand a series of
multi-stakeholder processes at work (in Agriculture planning) in several
African countries... I was quite impressed for a number of reasons which I
won`t go into here (I`m currently working on the report...

However, one conclusion that I would draw is that while
`multi-stakeholderism` is in at least some instances very effective as an
inclusive, let`s say `participative` management tool it is very far from
what I, or I think almost anyone would call ``democratic`` (unless, as in
some I think, quite perverse instances, one chooses to conflate the notions
of management with democracy).

The problem is that while multi-stakeholderism is inclusive of interests it
is not necessarily accountable or representative of or for those interests.
So for example, while a national or reagional farmers` union might be a very
effective stakeholder representative of the interests of small holder
farmers the precise process of accountability and representivity is in many
instances a very open question subject to for example, the personailities of
individuals, literacy, access to media and information, political
interference etc. etc. The latter caveats do not preclude the former
affirmations but they do strongly bracket the degree to which such processes
could at all be called ``democratic`` at least within any definition of the
term that I (or I would expect most of us) would understand.

I think your broad objective of pursuing a framework for multi-stakeholder
governance of the Internet is a worthwhile one and one I hope to contribute
to in Baku, however, I think a useful outcome of that initiative would still
leave open the question of overall democractic governance and accountability
of the Internet.

Best,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 5:53 AM
To: Jean-Louis FULLSACK; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: AW: [governance] Principles

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