AW: [governance] Principles

Tue Oct 2 05:00:11 EDT 2012

Dear all, 

@ Norbert
>> Now, what does this mean for the Internet Governance debate? We need
>> to identify the best process of how to convey legitimacy. This
>> process, as has been pointed out, is multistakeholderism. But
>> multistakeholderism is not a form of participatory democracy; it is a
>> new form of conveying legitimacy in post-democratic trans-national
>> constellations. 
>
> Could you explain the precise meaning of "legitimacy" in this context?
>

I suggest that an International Internet norm is legitimate if it meets a formal and a material legitimacy requirement:

-        formally, it needs to be symbolically validated through its emergence in a multi-stakeholder process (the input and throughput dimension of legitimacy),

-        materially, it needs to be determinate enough for its purpose (thus allowing for non-binding instruments), cohere with the Internet’s core principles and be consonant with the values of Internet Governance, and adhere systematically to the broader normative system of Internet Governance (the output dimension of legitimacy).
Norms and norm-making procedures that meet the formal and material conditions of legitimacy that I have outlined above can overcome a problem Pierre Mounier identifies, namely that “no global internet governance body will be able to accumulate enough legitimacy over such a heterogeneous world; nor can traditional national states pretend to rule over it." Internet Governance norms are legitimate not because there is one central norm-making body – or because states exercise control – but because all stakeholders contribute to the process. They symbolically validate it and thus ensure that the norms meet the standards necessary for effective regulation, including determinacy, inner coherence, consonance with and adherence to the stakeholder-encompassing fundamental values

@ Karl
> I rather take a rather different position, which is that stakeholderism is oligarchy and not democratic at all.
Multistakholerdism means - in abstract - that all those who are touched by the normative outcomes of a normative process should have a say in the process. MS can be oligarchic if only some are heard (because of their position, wealth etc.). But it can be desigend in a way that avoids this dilemma.

@ Rony
> This discussion really can't be serious. It opens up an incredible can of worms and seems to be posited on the notion that the Internet has revoked the 2,500 previous years of political philosophy and history. The nation state is going to be with us for the foreseeable future (that is to say, our lifetimes) as the source and locus of law and power.
Yes, the nation state will continue to be important, but the way international legal instruments have been created of lately evidences a clear trend towards the inclusion of non-state actors, other stakeholders. Just take the Rome Statute of the ICC as example where NGOs had an important role to play in the treaty-making process. This is evidence of the trend that I'm describing. In international law, we call it humanizatinon, the development away from a purely state-focused international order to an order that takes into account other entities.
> The Internet has not put an end to the nation state, much as some people on this list would like to believe. Try telling a traffic policeman that he can't arrest you because you're not a citizen but a netizen,  and see where you end up.
Nobody who is serious believes that the Internet puts an end to the nation state. But nobody who wants to be taken seriously should argue that there have been no changes to the way legal and paralegal norms bearing upon the Internet are created and implemented.

And regarding the policeman: Go to him and ask him to help you in arresting the, say,  Tajistikan-based spammer with Australian nationality who uses servers in Sao Tomé ... and see where it gets you.

Regarding David&Michael: I haven't forgotten you, but I am travelling ... so bear with me, I'll get to you soon. 
And no, the Nazis enver got to power legitimaely. In the last free elections they received a third of the vote. They then used a campaign of intimidaiton, violence and fear. BTW: Respect Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law 

Cheers
Matthias  

________________________________________
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] im Auftrag von Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Oktober 2012 10:08
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein
Betreff: Re: [governance] Principles

I am always open to optimism of the will and pessimism of the intellect (ok I try...often unsuccesfully)...

The contextual issues in MSG at IGF are missing from the commodious term democracy (of which there are many)... let me put it blunty from a CIR perspective... we have a non-binding IGF with MSG but are effectively precluded from discussing CIR in large order... one would have expected a non-binding inclusive process to be just the opposite... perhaps more work is needed with some guidance from critics otherwise we just a half glass full while others drink up the water while we are not looking...

On 2012/10/01 05:07 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:

Interesting and important.

My question relates to this part: “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.”

There is an assumption what “most of us” would expect – but it is not defined.

So I assume – maybe wrongly? - it is a kind of “one man (or woman) one vote”? If not – so what? Please elaborate.

This surely was a good principle – it was used a lot arguing, for example, against the South African Apartheid regime which rejected it.

Was it a triumph of democracy when the National Socialists (the “Nationalsozialisten” = Nazi”), with the help of the German National People's Party<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_National_People%27s_Party>, were victorious in elections in March 1933 – starting a dark age of German history, tremendous damage on many others too.

“Demo-cracy” hints at a concept that the will of the people governs. But how?

The Cambodian People's Party has gained more and more seats in the National Assembly through every vote since 1993 – but the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia has raised serious concerns because the electoral system – especially the National Election Committee – is controlled by government appointees, NOT representing the plurality of parties in the National Assembly. And thousands and thousands of people forcefully evicted from their traditional areas of residency have not only lost their homes, but they are no longer on residency related voter lists.

Is the one-country-one-vote - on the UN level – more democratic, where 14 million Cambodia have the same vote-weight as 235+ million of Indonesia?

The question is not only: What is democratic? – In the actual situations where we live it means also: How do we move towards the good goal that “the people's” benefits (not the majority of the people who voted in the Nazis in Germany, I add, without offering at the same time a rationale for my personal opinion here) are central?

It is on this background that I well understand the short statement (which is open to misunderstandings) about Internet Governance:

“Multistakeholderism *IS* the highest form of participatory democracy”

If it is not – so what else, and how?

Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh/Cambodia

=

On 10/1/2012 7:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

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

-------------- 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