[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Sat Mar 8 09:48:43 EST 2014
I thought she just got saying that industry has a stake and should have an
opportunity to comment on legislation or regulations that are targeted at it.
I am not sure how you drew that extra meaning from her words.
On 8 March 2014 7:46:55 PM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically
> dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr..
> "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not
> only legal but compulsory?
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
>
>
> > Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in multistakeholder
> policy making, even at national levels, would you support pharma companies,
> for instance, sitting in bodies making - actually making - health and drug
> policies, and big publishers in education policy making, and so on...
>
>
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for
> decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without
> consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU
> level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the
> chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the
> open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> > If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
> >
> > Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may be
> discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control, for
> instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for
> multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
> > Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are embracing
> here.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >>
> >> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy authority
> and delegated authority. These are concepts and ideas that are rather well
> worked out in the texts of political science and public administration.
> >>
> >> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being subject
> to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
> >> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
> representatives .
> >>
> >> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex manner
> whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international treaties,
> and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements, the manner of
> their national application remain in a somewhat complex interplay with
> national political systems. But this system of global public policies still
> works.)
> >>
> >> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
> >>
> >> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions
> regarding public policy etc and then find entry points for big business to
> exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is established on
> some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover all areas of our
> social and political existence. This is what is happening now.
> >>
> >> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of 'equal footing' in
> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big
> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it cannot. The
> multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the one offered by
> Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the global level.
> Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level. Such
> efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this models is
> brought to the national levels.
> >>
> >> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
> contributing so strongly to...
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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 esterhuysenanriette 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 esterhuysenanriette 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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