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

Thu Mar 6 21:35:06 EST 2014

Hi Parminder - you are correct, thank you, yes, the statement was
developed on the Best Bits list for endorsement by those who choose to
do so.
I note that many examples of multi-stakeholder internet related public
policy making have been made in submissions to the WGEC and elsewhere.
There seems to be a rather circular argument as to whether these
actually relate to public policy or not, depending on the definition of
such.
It is of course possible to endorse statements in part - that may be one
option for those who object to particular aspects, but of course that is
entirely up to them.
Regards
Joy
On 7/03/2014 1:02 a.m., parminder wrote:
> Joy
>
> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>
> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov 
> participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as
> gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.
>
> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>
>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>
> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making,
> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
> statements.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy
> - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on
> BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out
> withdrawn. Thanks.
>
> /*
> */
> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>
>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>     internet governance.
>>
>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes
>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been
>> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes:
>> these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair,
>> the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says,
>> taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance
>> can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including
>> human rights.
>>
>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>
>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>> relevant to internet governance
>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>> doing so; and
>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore
>> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though
>> they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>
>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>> which is relevant to internet governance
>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>
>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which
>> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation
>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>
>>
>> Joy
>> Joy
>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the
>>> use of 'multilateral'.
>>>
>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>
>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the
>>> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
>>> and international organisations. No single government should have a
>>> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>
>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary
>>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
>>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>
>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines
>>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role
>>> in relation to international internet governance."
>>>
>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
>>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
>>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But
>>> we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that
>>> no one government should dominate - but in the context of the
>>> involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all
>>>>>>> points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two
>>>>>>> hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/ and whether it is different
>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If
>>>>>>> so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role
>>>>>>> (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please
>>>>>>> address this point specifically. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to
>>>>>> accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how
>>>>>> equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non
>>>>> gov actors.... 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this
>>>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>
>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
>>>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
>>>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
>>>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>
>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term
>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>
>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>
>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
>>>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
>>>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>
>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to
>>>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me
>>>> to stay away from this doc.
>>>>
>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to
>>>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin
>>>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post
>>>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It
>>>> is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the
>>>> Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>>>
>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
>>>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
>>>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
>>>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it
>>>> matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present
>>>> of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the
>>>> outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>
>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the
>>>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>>>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect
>>>>> and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected
>>>>> and that relevant national legislation complies with their
>>>>> obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure
>>>>> that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
>>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil
>>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and
>>>>> notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at
>>>>> community level. The private sector and particularly the technical
>>>>> community significantly influence and encourage the development,
>>>>> distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should
>>>>> continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for
>>>>> economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to
>>>>> information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge
>>>>> society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/05c05657/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140307/05c05657/attachment.vcf>
-------------- 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