CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

Sun Jul 27 10:16:44 EDT 2014

Hi,

"Multistakeholderism" has been such a huge "black box" so far,
notwithstanding some of us being comfortable with the notion and not
finding any issue to contend with, and I'm afraid "equal footing" might
just be yet such another black box we need to disentangle or unbundle. So I
hear what Ian is saying and I don't think it would necessarily miss the
concerns raised by Parminder, as we may put forward some alternate
formulation -- such as a definition in extension -- to spell out our
meaning and a working definition of those terms (and stating explicitly
that such substitution is eaxctly what we're trying to achieve.)

Frankly, the phrase "equal footing" has not helped us that much in our
deliberations. We often talk about human beings being equal, but it seems
to me what we mean is that we all should be recognized equal dignity and be
treated equally (as all of us being humans) and equitably (esp. when
external resources or privileges are involved), regardless of their gender,
 the color of their skin, how/who they worship, or who they love, etc (as
long as the positive rights of others are not infringed upon.) That doesn't
mean we're exactly the same, or that we have the exact same skill set and
same capacities, and as a result, that we are interchangeable in any
position. We still have different skill sets, different capabilities (and
opportunities, for that matter because not all opportunities are dictated
by state regulation) and play different roles in the society but we just no
longer assign these roles dogmatically to people based on, say, their
biology.

I know some of you think: Yeah, giving governments such exclusive role in
policy-making precisely is a dogma. That may well be so, but that is what
we have to work with until such time comes where the world will be such a
different place (meaning where we would have managed to reorganized the
world order) so that a bunch of individuals who did not run for public
office in any given jurisdiction and who call themselves (global) civil
society will find the formula for a globally recognized legitimacy to sit
at the table, hold the pen and sign international or global
multistakeholder agreements to be binding to all stakeholders/parties
including states, cast the vote for the ratification of such agreements and
finally see through to their enforcement. For let's not forget that the
possibility of an international order, including through the use of
international legal instruments, is based on a mutual recognition of
nation-states and an acceptance of ways they should deal with each other
and address their shared concerns. As such, intergovernmental organizations
still have a long way to go and they are entitled to their own and proper
procedures for decision- and policy-making.

One may be tempted to say, we shouldn't bother with that because it is a
state-centric designed system anyway and as such they are not meant to take
the best interest of the people at heart. All what I say to that is, this
is currently the way to (international) legality or any other form of
binding decision-making that will involve and commit governments. We have
to start there and try to evolve the system, or start a revolution. (I do
understand there is such thing as "soft law" but it seems to me there would
be a silent contradiction into advocating for soft law as the way to make
collective decisions for the Internet and then spend so much energy
advocating for the need for civil society to have the exact same formal
role than governments.)

As a result of the above, following is an outline of what "equal footing"
means to me.

- That all stakeholders should enjoy the same access for participation in
the policy deliberations and development. This entails, among other things,
that they have an equitable time for intervention during the oral debates
and that they have enough time to prepare and submit written inputs which
will need to be accounted for in the final outcome.

- Interactive live and plenary discussions must be part of the process
(while making allowance for remote participation). While it is legitimate
for every stakeholder group to consult within themselves, the assumption is
that all significant concerns and possible bones of contention must be
aired publicly and discussed during the plenary multistakeholder
deliberations. The need here is to avoid that after all stakeholders walk
out at the end of the deliberations thinking they have reached some
acceptable agreement on a stable text, one stakeholder group get behind
close door and make substantive changes unilaterally.

To give en example to illustrate why I think "equal" footing" does not mean
we all have the same capacities and roles and that as such we are
interchangeable, the 2012 ITRs (International Telecommunications
Regulations) could have been prepared and drafted in a multistakeholder
fashion a la "equal footing" (as described above.) And still, at the end of
the day, I could not mount a CS coalition from my country for the purposes
of voiding my government signature (or, for a treaty that we CS would
rather see them sign, push a reluctant government aside, grab the pen and
sign it on behalf of my country. Assuming such action can even happen
materially, the outcome of course would not have any material effect in
international affairs. And as a CS I can manifest in the streets or at the
Parliament of my country, but that in itself would not count for
ratification or nullification of any international or global
multistakeholder binding agreement my government has decided to sign or not
to sign. The government will still have to decide to listen to me and make
appropriate changes or nothing will change as far as those decisions are
concerned.

For all the above reasons, I think "equal footing" really applies mainly to
the deliberations of policy development, and it is about equal dignity of
the governed and of the governing, and mutual respect. It is that sense of
equal dignity and mutual respect that provides the foundation for
compelling all stakeholders, chiefly governments, to live up to the outcome
of our collective deliberations while further carrying out the particular
duties in policy-making.

Sorry for the lengthy response. I intend to add a couple of paragraphs to
this addressing specifically "multistakeholderism" and post it later to my
blog.

Thanks,

Mawaki

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
> On Sunday 27 July 2014 02:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> definitely I think there is room for some sort of consensual statement
> here, and this goes a long way towards getting one.
>
> I just re read the relevant sections of NetMundial statement - which has
> some very good inclusions as regards MS and (on my first quick reading)
> does not conflict with the sort of separation of consultation and policy
> development (multistakeholder) and final decision making (may be a
> different process) which both Avri and Parminder are alluding to.
>
> If we are developing a statement I just wonder about the wisdom of
> concentrating on "on an equal footing" - to me its a bit like "enhanced
> cooperation" and not necessarily meaningful to our future.
>
>
> In a good debate, whether the two sides agree on substantive issues or
> not, it is always useful, and mostly possible, to agree on what are the key
> issues that are the matter of debate. "Equal footing' is such key issue. If
> we skirt it, we remain where we are, wrapped in obfuscations, often blaming
> others for positions that they may not hold and so on. It is best to know
> what positions we hold, vis a vis key matters of debate.
>
> BTW, the following is an excerpt from the NetMundial document. (emphasis
> added.)
>
> (begins)
>
> ..... list of points that need better understanding and further discussion
> in appropriate fora:
>
> 1. Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet
> governance,*including the meaning and application of equal footing. *
>
> (ends)
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
> IANA transition process
>
>
> On Saturday 26 July 2014 08:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Snip
> Whenever I need a definition, I use:
>
>
> The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
> for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
> participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
> recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
> may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
> always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
> the implementations.
>
>
>
> The definition above says that the 'equal footing' part is only for
> participation in deliberation of issues and giving (I understand,
> non-binding) recommendations of solutions. And that it does not apply to
> actual decision making and implementation. However, this is not how the
> term 'equal footing' is employed in the current MS discourse and the
> MSist text that is sought to pushed into global documents, including at
> NetMundial, CSTD WGs, and almost everywhere else. (I can provide any
> number of proofs to support this assertion.) There is obviously a world
> of difference between 'equal footing' for deliberations and rec giving,
> on one hand, and public policy decision making and implementation, on
> the other.
>
> But lets not crib over the past. If this is the way Avri looks at MS
> processes, and I see that Mawaki has noted the definition with some
> enthusiasm, can we attempt what could be a 'grand reconciliation' :) ...
> Between the so called MSist on one hand and those who profess global
> democratic governance (called MLists by detractors), which division I
> understand has almost universally been cited as the key factor causing
> rifts in the IG related civil society, and making its contribution far
> less effective than it could have been. A worthy cause to attempt,
> anyone would say.
>
> I propose that the IGC adopts the following text by consensus.
>
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes we mean an equal footing
> only for means and forums of deliberations and possible recommendation
> (non binding) giving. The term 'equal footing' does not extent to
> decision making and implementation."
>
> Now, if people want to keep the issue of technical standards related and
> other decisions out of such a formulation (as I would bec it admits of a
> different dynamics) we can make clear that we are taking of public
> policy decision  making, something which in fact is clear and given when
> we begin to discuss democracy , which is the present context. but, still
> can make it explicit, if only to avoid getting into that customary mess
> of a policy processes related discussions being responded to with a
> technical decisions related comment(s). So, maybe
>
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes for public policies
> development we mean an equal footing only for means and forums  of
> deliberations and possible recommendation making (non binding) . The
> term 'equal footing' does not extent to decision making and
> implementation."
>
> The NEt Mundial document recommended that the ideas and concepts related
> to democratic MS processes be discussed further and clarified. By
> attempting the above, we will only be taking forward the work of
> NetMundial.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
> need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
>
> avri
> m17m.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/governance/attachments/20140727/1e8df185/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