[bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

Mon Mar 17 03:07:20 EDT 2014

Dear all,

The revised draft expresses the opinion and good intentions of the IGC much
better. However some finer points:

the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for maintaining the
> openness and the global availability of the Internet while continuously
> improving not only on its security but also on its safety for all users
> around the globe.

Instead of "security but also on its safety" we could say, "security of
Internet at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
users around the globe",  ( 'safety' already forms part of 'security' ,
Civil Liberties are of greater concern ! )

 across the world, in developed as well as in developing regions.

"across the world" already includes 'developed' and 'developing' countries.
If developing countries are to be seated equally, why do we insist on
separation ?

> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent
> that it is meant to be inclusive, bottom-up and consensus driven and, as
> such, it enhances democracy by seeking further participation from all
> people potentially impacted by its decision outcomes. It is our constant
> concern to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean
> ‘anti-intergovernmental’ or ‘private sector led’ but is rather positively
> open to embrace and actualize a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.

The Internet Governance Caucus supports the multi-stakeholder policy making
model as an inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances
democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world
potentially impacted by its policy decision outcomes. With faith we express
hope in the multi-stakeholder process,  which could be defined and
acknowledged as model different and clearly distinct from the
"inter-governmental" or "private sector led" models, but rather as a more
complete model, an inclusive model that positively embraces and actualizes
participation by all stakeholders from around the world for the benefit of
all the people of the world

( This change is suggested because the sentence "to make sure the term
...." could be misread to imply an accusation that term multi-stakeholder
is already or is being reduced to mean 'anti-intergovernmental' or 'private
sector led'.  I felt that IGC could welcome the current development with
more positive wording. This is an initial statement as a positive note, it
is intended to be a broad statement, so even a reference to any of IGC's
concerns could be broad and positive )

Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA’s current role,
> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the
> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be
> truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.

(Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and
that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and
appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.

Sivasubramanian M

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  well said, Mawaki
> regards
> Guru
>
>
> On 03/17/2014 03:23 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>    Dear Sivasubramanian,
>
>  Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of
> democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the former)
> that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most recent case of
> Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can happen to something
> called democracy and formally designed as such, you bet that can happen to
> a multistakeholder governance structure. After all, what does
> "multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you think it will necessarily and
> always function as a better democracy? Is there anything in the word that
> suggests so? No. Can stakeholders turn out to form a smoke screen diverting
> from the interests of the larger public or the people? You bet they can.
>
>  Mawaki
>
>  p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe...
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Dear Mawaki
>>
>>
>>  On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>      Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Hello
>>>>
>>>>  IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent
>>>>> that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due
>>>>> consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet
>>>>> policy)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>>>> contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>>>> Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the
>>>> further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict
>>>> the ideals of democracy???
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself
>>> since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing
>>> it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT
>>> contradict..."
>>>
>>
>>   No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does not".
>> The rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was making is that
>> the premise underlying the condition was not valid. So I asked "Multi-stakeholder
>> model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of
>> democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of
>> democracy???"
>>
>>  Thank you
>>  Sivasubramanian M
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global
>>>> process, open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation,
>>>> the policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced.
>>>> The intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
>>>> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
>>>> lead to politicization of the process.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special
>>> interests or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in
>>> parentheses in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet
>>> policy' precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
>>> minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and
>>> consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to
>>> democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby
>>> the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
>>> whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the
>>> minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the
>>> democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely
>>> unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of
>>> minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I
>>> hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.
>>>
>>>  Thanks,
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  In India the intention to protect minority interests began with
>>>> policies of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for
>>>> minorities in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social
>>>> justice has also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the
>>>> Government's openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby
>>>> groups, at least occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified
>>>> voice of the lobby group wins over the muted voice or silence of others.
>>>> Certainly a global process can not create a situation where minorities
>>>> would be neglected, but this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not
>>>> complicate the goodness of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities"
>>>> we could say "all"
>>>>
>>>>  Sivasubramanian M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> India +91 99524 03099 <%2B91%2099524%2003099>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/bc6880e2/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