[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Thu Mar 6 02:33:30 EST 2014

Thanks for the pointer… I did in fact comment on a much earlier version (as circulated as part of a larger email by, I believe Matthew, but this is a good place to begin a useful discussion I think.

Reading your contribution I’m left with more questions than answers I’m afraid..

1.       What are the details for the formation/determination of “stakeholders”—do they pursue their interests/stakes or do they pursue the public good

a.       How are divergent interests/conflicts within stakeholder groups handled

b.      Is this transparent

c.       What are the accountability mechanisms here

d.      Who/how is “legitimacy” accorded/denied—by what authority

e.      Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers

2.       Decision making processes—i.e. how are divergent interests/conflicts between stakeholders handled 

a.       who gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the result is in the public interest—

b.      can/should those with specific private interests be in a position to deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parminder’s point about the private sector being equal with governments in making decisions) 

c.       Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus

d.      Can private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this

e.      Is there such a thing as “conflict of interest”—who is responsible for this—how is it policed, sanctions

3.       How to ensure true diversity of opinion including among those who challenge the way in which the issues are framed—diversity of “identity” is relatively easy, normative diversity is rather more difficult to achieve and handle 

4.       How is the very real danger of capture guarded against

5.       What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation

These are things that occur to me off the top.. I could elaborate on any of these questions as might be useful.

Mike

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:36 PM
To: parminder; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Assuming we’re genuinely trying to understand each other’s positions, my views on the short comings of the current system and proposals to move the debate forward are expressed in the submission to Netmundial

At http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/  which was available for comment for a month or more on the BB list – (without anyone providing substantial comments except for Marilia). It sets out my take on the issue.

I think that achieving a democratic approach to internet governance is enormously challenging and this is the best option of those practically available.  

Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).   I think this would be catastrophic for the internet's ability to promote free speech and open communication.  I look at   the Human Rights Council – occasionally chaired by some of the most hostile governments to human rights and see that it  has often been catastrophic to human rights .  

Nor do I  see your distinction between government and business – don’t you think that the CCP central committee are also the wealthiest businessmen in China? – that in most repressive societies (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia) business and government are utterly intertwined – do you want  such governments/business interests to dominate internet policy?   You must know from your time at WGEC that this what they want?.  Who represents my interests as a user in such a world? How is anyone represented?

And to be clear - I say this with respect for your position as I think you have valid concerns and we probably share the same goals – while clearly disagreeing on the means

From: "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:56
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

p

On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

"not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”

Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democracy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of how to reach it  

I have tried my best, in last many months/ years, but have been unable to understand how getting big business reps to have "equal footing" parity with government reps (however imperfectly elected govs they may come from) in terms of making actual decisions on public policy issues is compatible with democracy. That is what I call anti- or post-democracy.

And that is the precise issue/ question I posted yesterday with respect to the principles submission proposed by some civil society groups including yours, but got no response.

However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do please explain. We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..

Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list

Else, this kind of stuff is simply rhetoric - asking for mental exercises and all. 

parminder 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: " <mailto:bestbits at lists.net> <bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

Tks,

M

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition 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>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <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; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: 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>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <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; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: 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>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <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] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt> &gt,
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> 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|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/20140305/c5bacf02/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