[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Mar 6 00:33:56 EST 2014
On Thursday 06 March 2014 10:06 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi
> stakeholder ideas in your proposition.......
>
Andrew, you just said to Michael in your previous email
" ....which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly
tedious length....."
Just reminding bec it seems you had forgotten.... and then also there
was this later talk of insults and so on....
parminder
> which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to
> explore.
>
> Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or
> WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the
> Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr
> Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested. So I’d rather
> not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which
> was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to ushering in a
> new era of global democracy).
>
> As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and
> human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as
> to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you? It
> is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest
> we terminate this exchange from now.
>
>
>
> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>,
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>"
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but
> ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my
> off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…
>
> I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among
> others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was…
> it’s complicated…
>
> It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting
> technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training,
> developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making…
> And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not
> multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could
> accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and
> participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to
> strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to
> get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this
> would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but
> interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the
> consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.
>
> Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world
> enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well
> in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about
> Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if
> we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well
> “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *
>
> (And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of
> democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think
> tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the
> US State Department, Google, various other OECD private corps, and
> certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it
> would appear**
>
> *Leonard Cohen..
> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85
>
> **TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY
> http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf
>
> M
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question. If you mean by
> multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by
> states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap
> - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly
> tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows
> my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global
> negotiations?
>
> Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range
> of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in
> the governance debate.
>
> Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is
> to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>,
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>"
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Andrew (and Suresh…
>
> Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of
> serious discussion and debate.
>
> However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed,
> undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…
>
> The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever
> they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it
> isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone
> a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).
>
> From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls
> apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related
> significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the
> most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on
> offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves
> on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of
> divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards
> convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization
> and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of
> scaling. In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several
> names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge,
> divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced
> choices “or else…
>
> Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have
> both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be
> where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways
> forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now
> have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of
> democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the
> extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously
> marginalized populations.
>
> I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically
> supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this
> goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the
> broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public
> good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension
> to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and
> methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in
> opposition to the public interest.
>
> MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of
> power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the
> hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and
> non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in
> their structures.
>
> I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve
> missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to
> cut it.
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Michael
>
> Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make
> governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and
> accountable. Clearly we failed.
>
> Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is
> democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your
> democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?). How are my
> interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese
> or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Reply-To: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
> *To: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>,
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>"
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced
> by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or
> accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no
> (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes and the
> stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they
> are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with
> “role flexibilities”.
>
> Have I missed something here?
>
> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the
> curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we
> have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the
> strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust
> them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering
> Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a
> slightly higher reality component.
>
> M
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy
> Malcolm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
> *Cc:* <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean */parity/* in */decision
> making/* about */public policies /*between gov and non gov actors....
> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got
> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important
> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest
> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not
> skirt it...
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to
> that question. I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my
> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no
> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision
> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that
> language being used.
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as
> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a
> "decision" at all). In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may
> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one
> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others. For
> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human
> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam
> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human
> rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices,
> and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the
> trading of IPv4 addresses.
>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may
> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets. The above all
> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder
> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the
> circumstances.
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission
> to NetMundial
>
> ...
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/c6d3a0ed/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list