[bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?

Thu Mar 6 11:47:04 EST 2014

Im still waiting for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed system
(democracy) but one where there is at least a track record, very
considerable theoretical development, an enormous ecology concerning
Transparency and Accountability with a pig in a poke (multistakeholderism)
which has no (applicable) track record, absolutely no theoretical
development or underpinnings, and whose only ecology is highly questionable
since it suffers from, shall we say, significant transparency and
accountability deficits. 

The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with
existing processes by various highly questionable actorstax dodging private
sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted) tech
community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not only this
but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over (consensus
based) public policy outputs to those self-same private sector giants etc.
etc. 

If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending time
thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic
processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic
participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment
would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other
reasons for discarding democracy which we arent being made aware of. (That
the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes MSism 12
times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various of those
party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)

M

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:16 AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?

+1

This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same goals,
there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving those
goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both philosophically
and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described compelling
pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed system.
I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made about
the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and creating
new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for civil
society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong corporate
sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for global
action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe require
policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the Internet
governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about pressing
our case in the most effective manner available to us at this point in time.
Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more direct (and
democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I view the
incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly NOT
detrimental to our long-term objectives.

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

+ 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,

jeanette

Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:

I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government for
30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government delegation
that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why civil
society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point, they are
needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute in
protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

Andrew:

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).

Parminder
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.

Wolfgang:

The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there
is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing
(more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get
out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as
enhanced cooperation).

With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system
with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will
end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive
government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade
for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and
economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and
freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in
developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.

The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the
innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy
development process where governments are just one (vey important)
stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue
by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental
stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
domination and capture.

Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is
based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new
developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic)
oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or
stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by
the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough
consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles
(which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with
the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with
regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road
map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to
approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of
multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories
etc.).

But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security
to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional
arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome
of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather
different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive
is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil,
South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will
keep their own positions.

However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all
the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN
member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This
is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the
world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to
reduce such violations.

If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving
backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.

____________________________________________________________
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:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/7fc571a7/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