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

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Mar 30 22:00:47 EDT 2014


On Sunday 30 March 2014 11:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin 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?

Thanks Stephanie, Yes I am quite familiar with the ITU. Sorry, but I did 
not get the point of the question, though.

Best regards, parminder

> Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
> One question:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:57 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto: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 wrotea blog 
>>>> <http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy>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 
>>>> <http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/is-certain-kind-of-multistakeholderism-a-post-democratic-ideology-need-to-save-netmundial-outcome-documents-from-crossing-some-sacred-democratic-lines/300>'.
>>>>
>>>> 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 atbestbits.net  <http://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 suchCGI.Br  <http://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 ofCGI.br  <http://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  <http://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  <http://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/>  <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, seehttp://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org  po box
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director, association
>>>>>>>>>>> for progressive communicationswww.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 <mailto: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/20140331/7dc5dc6c/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


More information about the Governance mailing list