AW: [governance] Principles

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

Hallo Wolfgang Of course I'd prefer to exchange with you about such "senitive" issues in our common language, I mean german. But unfortunately we can't on this list ... I know -and I understand- how your background is modelled by your personal experience. However, the thematics we are dealing with here are in a much different environment. In the ICT domain there are not any longer two "empires" that try to share the (ICT-)pie, but rather a unique one that firmly intends to get almost all of it ! That justifies some major points Parminder is regularly and correctly raising on the list. Let's look at your arguments for assessing that MSHism IS "the highest form of participatory democracy" because it "offers an option to bring all parties on a equal footing into the process of a PDP". On an equal footing ? Do you feel on equal footing with Eric Schmitt (Google) or even Mark Zuckerberg" (Facebook), just to take two simple examples ? Unless you you are presumptuus or irrealistic, dear Wolfgang, this isn't the case. May be I'm wrong, but it's up to you to proove it to us. For staying in Europe, are you aware of the capacity of influence of the 2000 or so "agreed lobbyists" in Brussels and did you weigh it against that of the hundred or so NGOs ? Just look the result in the REACH Directive of the Commission ! Whereas I agree (end of second alinea) that "a intergovernmental treaty system needs additional (external) checks and balances" I'm rather sceptical about the fact that checks and balances have " today be embedded into a multistakeholder environment". Such an "embedded MSHism" is likely to be ineffective as the lamentable failure of the Rio+20 Summit demonstrates, despite a long multistakeholder based preparation ! However, I agree with the usefulness of a discussion about the meaning of national (and regional as for Europe) sovereignty in a globalized world, except that in my mind -and for the sake of Humanity- this world shouldn't be "Internet based" but, let's say, Internet benefitting or Internet-aided. If CS is to defend something in the actual world it IS a common set of values agreed upon. Finally I also agree with your proposal (last alinea) to start a discussion -in my opinion an in-depth discussion- on "how to enhance our understanding of sovereingty and self-determination", and "How a shared sovereignty (some people call it "collaborative sovereignty") could look like". But I'd suggest this dicussion to permanently keep in mind the fundamentals of representative democracy, unless it will encompass risks for democracy itself to regress ! I thank you, Wolfgang, for your understanding Best greetings to you and to the members of the list Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 01/10/12 11:53
> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
> A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : 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
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121001/64506bbe/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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