[bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?

Thu Mar 6 12:10:33 EST 2014

I beg to differ: democracy is not a "national concept".
It is an abstract concept that comprises (in most liberal accounts) public
participation and open/free opposition through institutionalized channels.
Ascriptive democracy involves, also, capacity building in aspects related
to participation and opposition. The most concrete and known manifestations
of it occur within national polities. But it does not mean *per se *that
those abstract normative propositions cannot be operationalized on
transnational, international, global bases. I actually believe that that
(broad participation, opposition and public scrutiny of conflitcs, as well
as capacity building for those tasks) is just the case ahead of us in
relations to the future of INet Governance.

Regards
Diego

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> How about democracy is supposed to be a national concept while we are
> dealing with transnational issues that involve  public but also lots of
> private resources? Thus, this is not about replacing democracy but
> enhancing some of its principles to the transnational sphere. Actually an
> old idea that now has found another concrete case of application.
> Jeanette
>
> On 6 March 2014 17:47:04 CET, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm 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 actors--tax 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 aren't 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
*Diego R. Canabarro*
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
diego.canabarro [at] *ufrgs.br <http://ufrgs.br>*
diegocanabarro [at] *gmail.com <http://gmail.com>*
Cell # +55-51-8108-1098
Skype: diegocanabarro

*GT Governança Digital*

*Centro de Estudos Internacionais sobre Governo (CEGOV)*

Campus do Vale, prédio 43322 - Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500
Porto Alegre / RS CEP 91509-900
Fone: +55 51 3308.9860 / 3308.9934 / Site: *www.cegov.ufrgs.br
<http://www.cegov.ufrgs.br/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/055a3067/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