[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Mar 6 03:49:04 EST 2014
On Thursday 06 March 2014 12:06 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> 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.
I will comment on this approach you take in the above proposed
submission in my next email, first on the principle level issue of who
makes public policy decisions...
>
> 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).
You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is
so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP,
or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we
got... We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my
organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to
help, but not do, policy making.
However, your poser clearly shows that you believe that this should not
be the case... In that case please let me know /*who should take the
public policy decisions, and how*/? To be clear on this is important
because there are an enormous number of public policy issues to be
sorted out and default/ status quo simply benefits that economically and
politically most powerful. This is a direct question.
To note, your proposed roadmap proposes no model for public policy
decision making, only for agenda developing and vetting..... Apparently,
decisions are still to be made in an inter- governmental manner by
existing global policy bodies. Right? Please do let me know if I am
wrong...Again a direct question.
So, unlike, what you claim about Michael's position, it is you who do
not have a model for making global Internet related public policy
decisions, rather than he. However, if I am wrong and you do have a
model, lets see it, and we can comment on it.
I hope it is not your case that there are not significant global
Internet related public policy issues to be sorted out. But if that is
the case, lets discuss that particular issue. It is good to be specific.
(BTW, do see numerous developing country, including Brazil's, submission
to WGEC on such outstanding Internet-related public policy issues)
> 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 .
When I look at my parliament, I consider it catastrophic in many
manners, but still it does not take away my belief in parliamentary
democracy. Just need to improve things by and by. BTW, human rights
council did adopt the privacy resolution recently, which is quite good
and also rather specific.... This is much more than IGF has achieved in
10 years -- just to take one instance, when the whole world is reeling
under net neutrality erosions, this issue has successfully been
prevented to be discussed as a main session policy issue at the IGF. Who
prevented it. Make a guess. I can write a full story how it has been
done (BTW try reading transcripts of feb 2012 MAG meeting in Paris).
>
> Nor do I see your distinction between government and business
Well, that is a problem.. and represents a fundamental disbelief in
politics and democracy, which I cannot do much about.. But still, coming
from you I am a bit shocked to hear this....
> – 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?
Andrew, your statement of the problem is - the existing so called
democratic governance systems are dominated by business interests. I
agree, and we must do something about it. A lot of democracy movements
worldwide, in which I participate, are doing something about it. What I
cannot understand or agree with is your solution.... How does giving
formal political power to those same big businesses - through
multistakeholder decision making - solves or even begins to address that
problem... Does it not simply exacerbates it -- with not even a possible
eventual solution, because we would have normatively and structurally
admitted dominance of big business.... Sorry, but I simply do not get this.
> You must know from your time at WGEC that this what they want?.
In my time at WGEC, I see big business reps, and compliant civil
society, simply shout down any possibility of global addressing of key
and pressing Internet related public policy issues -- which simply helps
big monopolies and oligopolies keep stuffing their safes more and more
at the expense of public interest.
> Who represents my interests as a user in such a world? How is anyone
> represented?
Yes, those are key questions.... And my answer is - giving big business
formal political power is going in exactly the opposite directions from
improving people's representativity in policy processes. We should try
to reduce the power of big business, bot sanctify and formalise it...
parminder
>
> 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 <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>"
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:56
> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>, "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>>
> 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
>
> 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 <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>> <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
>>
>> 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 <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 <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
>>
>> 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/20140306/58b5b2b8/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