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

Fri Mar 7 05:10:48 EST 2014

Dear all

I think it is not so clear cut.

We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have
opportunities to make them more democratic.

I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of Brazil who
is very active in CGI.br.

I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to use
Jovan's term) or policy making.  My understanding was that it was
primarily for policy shaping.

He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body
that can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these
lists can give examples.

CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that
is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public
policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.

Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, but
it is multi-stakeholder.

Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
different parts of government is represented which his important.
Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.

It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public
policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond
the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public
consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.

>From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models to
be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it
does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also
propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in
an inclusive MS space.

Anriette

On 06/03/2014 14:02, 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
>>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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/e8af313c/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