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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

(applause)


On 30 March 2014 11:34:02 am Stephanie Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Hi Parminder, I am sorry I did not respond earlier, this message got lost 
> in the tsunami.  I understand and share many of your questions, and have 
> but one question:  are you familiar with the ITU?
> Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
> One question:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:57 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Stephanie
> > Just to clarify three points...
> > On Friday 14 March 2014 09:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >> Dear Parminder, I think this is a really important and difficult 
> question...I am not sure we agree until I read your referenced docs.    I 
> am not prepared to give up on democracy yet, but there is no question it 
> could use a little spine-stiffening, and I think the Internet and the 
> modern phenomenon of social media campaigns is exactly the kind of 
> envigoration it needs.
> > I have no doubt that the new communicative paradigm centred on the 
> Internet will fundamentally transform the practice (not the principles) of 
> democracy. In fact, we know that there are movements ranging from European 
> cities, to Philippines, to India to the US to streets of Brazil that 
> represent a strong disenchantment with the manner political parties system 
> operates today... And many alternative forms and practices are taking 
> shape... But none of these resembles what we know as multistakeholderism in 
> the IG space... Does this say something? In fact, all new democracy forms, 
> no doubt incipient and experimental yet, are very wary of power of big 
> business and voice strong opposition to it, much less like IG's MSism hug 
> it fondly and offer it special political legitimacy... I challenge the IG 
> MS-ist to bring one grassroots participatory democratic movement to endorse 
> its pro big business formulae. And I am serious. please do take me on this 
> challenge. So, lets not employ the global dissatisfaction with performance 
> of governance institutions today towards remedies that are worse than the 
> illness. Yes democracy needs spine-stiffening, and perhaps more, but that 
> would take place in the heat and dust of the streets where popular 
> movements build, not in the MSists ivory towers.
> >>  This is one reason why keeping the Internet in a multi-stakeholder 
> model has appeal for many of us.  I will read your materials and respond 
> more thoughtfully,
> > Look forward, thanks, >> but I would point out one thing...managing a 
> global entity in a multi-stakeholder way does not in itself take power away 
> from the nation state.
> > Must also make it clear that I am no special fan of nation states... I 
> understand it to be a particular political formulation that arise in the 
> post feudal industrial age scene... And with the information/Internet age 
> its legitimacy as well as boundaries are strained... Nothing wrong with it. 
> However, tenets of democracy and political equality of all people is 
> sacrosanct, And MSism militates against them,
> >
> >>  The fact is, managing the protection of one's citizens in a global, 
> free-trading world, across a range of policy issues (food safety, 
> employment standards, access to water, rights to travel, religious freedom, 
> privacy protection, anti-discrimination to name a few) is already a 
> challenge.  Some states are doing this more effectively than others....I 
> would point to the EU, who have in some respects higher agricultural 
> standards, more uniform data protection, and harmonized e-commerce 
> regulations than we do in North America, in my humble opinion.  (this may 
> start a storm of controversy on the list, please resist the temptation, I 
> am just trying to point out efforts to continue to assert the power to 
> regulate, not really trying to say the EU is better.)  The point about the 
> Internet, is it is a key enabler in helping us get to whatever stage of 
> global cooperation and human development we are capable, as deeply flawed 
> humans, of achieving.
> > Yes, precisely becuase the Internet is so important, it needs to be 
> regulated well, like other areas that you point out... And I believe that 
> finally, democratic regulation is the best one. Mostly, where democracies 
> begin to fail, regulations becomes worse, and I may dare suggest that this 
> could be a problem with North America vis a vis EU... So, lets seek global 
> democracy for best global regulation.
> > parminder
> > >> More later.
> >> Stephanie
> >> On 2014-03-14, at 8:36 AM, parminder wrote:
> >> >>> Dear Stephanie,
> >>> I read carefully your emails about multistakeholder participation in 
> policy making. I agree with everything you say. Can it then be taken that 
> we agree on multistakeholder participation in policy making? (More on 
> agreement and different versions of multistakeholderism or MSism later.) In 
> fact, your points on the need for non governmental 'stakeholders' to have 
> new formal venues of participation which cannot easily be influenced or 
> controlled by policy makers is most important. Last year, I wrote a blog 
> where I called IGF kind of structures as representing version 3 of 
> democracy, where new formal venues of participation are instituted that are 
> not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet will of policy makers...
> >>> However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for 
> instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several others.)They 
> specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for instance, equal 
> role for Google and the government of Brazil – in 'making actual public 
> policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on your formulations, may I 
> ask you whether you agree to such equality of all stakeholders – in terms, 
> sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of specificity, of 'making actual 
> public policy decisions'.
> >>> Do you think that this is a minor point, that need not be raised so 
> strongly. Is the proposition of 'equality of all stakeholders' expressed in 
> this fashion not a threat to democracy?
> >>> Please see IT for Change's submission to NetMundial titled - 'Is 
> certain kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? Need to 
> save NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred democratic lines'.
> >>> I am engaging with you on this matter especially because you are in the 
> High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect 'equality of all 
> stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking point as real negotiations 
> begin on outcome documents for Brazil meeting.
> >>> Regards
> >>> parminder
> >>> On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>>> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 
> years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully 
> understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in 
> government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  
> Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) 
> agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, 
> shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to 
> understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public 
> servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact 
> assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, 
> hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here 
> is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, 
> bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In 
> multilateral or normal gover!
> >>>>  nment regu
> >>>> !
> >>>>  lation mak
> >>>> ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from 
> fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some 
> countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry 
> associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights 
> advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes 
> hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My 
> point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or 
> rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is 
> more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, 
> money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the 
> process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair 
> and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a 
> stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very 
> clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed,!
> >>>>   stands to
> >>>>  be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil 
> society would see fit to support it and make it better.
> >>>> Stephanie Perrin
> >>>> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there 
> are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with 
> positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than 
> argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment 
> on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help 
> mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
> >>>> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global 
> Journal wrote:
> >>>> >>>>> Jeanette,
> >>>>> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
> >>>>> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation 
> without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to 
> conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not 
> able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or 
> is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some 
> reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that 
> understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them 
> outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
> >>>>> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity 
> to counterbalance big corps...
> >>>>> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder 
> prism?
> >>>>> No civil servants, no civil society...
> >>>>> So who's able?
> >>>>> Corporate servants, corporate society..
> >>>>> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why 
> do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
> >>>>> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a 
> multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
> >>>>> Jeanette,
> >>>>> All of this is really going insane.
> >>>>> Michael is so right
> >>>>> JC
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> >>>>> >>>>>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
> >>>>>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare 
> legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to 
> think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without 
> external influence.
> >>>>>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been 
> around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially 
> accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials 
> often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they 
> regulate.
> >>>>>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity 
> to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of 
> commercial lobbying.
> >>>>>> jeanette
> >>>>>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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:
> >>>>>     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:
> >>>     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
> >> > >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140330/385fd152/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