[governance] RE: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation

Fri May 2 13:22:33 EDT 2014

For an interesting reply to your comments Lee see these by a consummate
techie insider, who if you read to the end seems to be calling for the
Internet to be treated as a public utility.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140426_rip_network_neutrality/

M

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:12 PM
To: Rafik; Adam Peake; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on
enhanced cooperation

Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance seem to forget
who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the
Internet; not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of
-volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat.

Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century
when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue
splits; it's just not happening now.

How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights
domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to
think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement.

As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto,
citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and
businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of
other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the
table. 

A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet.

It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough
China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago.
(congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.)

Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to
how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy
is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying
attention.

It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global
Internet governance processes.

The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing -
in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct
lesson. 

In my always humble opinion : )

Lee

  _____  

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
<bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I
The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM
To: Rafik; Adam Peake
Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on
enhanced cooperation 

McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS
its blessings. You are in good company!!!

See below but in short, here are the best parts:

- "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! )

- When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG
itself: " Why couldnt we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public
sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new
partnerships, new multistakeholder networks"

- "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah
guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!!

- and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital
revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be
full participants in society, which is why its so important that they
understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networksglobal solution
networksand participate in them."

This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political
system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at
least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation.

Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector.
We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will
end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks
to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in
public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy".

No thanks!

JC

From McKinsey

The topic of business wasnt on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70
years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international
monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In
this video interview with McKinseys Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don
Tapscott explains why today is differentand why business must play a
central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscotts
remarks follows.

Interview transcript

A new model for solving global problems

Theres a fundamental change thats underway in the way that we solve
problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70
years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model
has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based
institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems.

And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are
not only stalled, theyre getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve,
or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them
is technology, and thats radically dropping transaction and collaboration
costs. In the private sector, its leading to deep changes in the
architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability
to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on.

In the public sector, its changing the way that we get capability to create
public value. Why wouldnt that affect the way that we get capability to
solve the problems in the world? Why couldnt we disaggregate that process
and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks?

A second thing thats happening is weve got the rise of the new pillars of
society, in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton
Woods in 1944, because they werent viewed as being pillars of society.
Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and
created goods and services.

There were also no NGOs
<http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/The_flow_of_governance_An_intervi
ew_with_Don_Tapscott?cid=other-eml-alt-mgi-mck-oth-1405> 1 at Bretton Woods,
because there werent any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now
weve got these new forces, and theyre coming together into something
thats very, very powerful. Theyre multistakeholder networks, I call them
global solution networks. Theyre engaging tens of thousands of
organizationscompanies, governments, civil societyand tens of millions of
people on a daily basis.

And theyre becoming material in the world. Theyre attacking every problem
that we have. And theyre creating wonderful new opportunities to address
some of the big challenges facing the global community.

The role of companies as citizens

The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the
smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There
are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we
should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around
for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the
UN is a key vehicle for that to occur.

But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big
climate-change conference thats coming up in September is going to be a
true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government,
civil society, and the private sector.

This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think
about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that
were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe
to be a good company, although lots didnt. But increasingly, youve got to
get good because of transparencyyoure going to get naked, and youve got
to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so
on.

But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil
society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is
critical to business because business cant succeed in a world thats
failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic
development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an
epidemic in the world today.

Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have
growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society,
which is why its so important that they understand the rise of these new
multistakeholder networksglobal solution networksand participate in them.

Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit :

Hi Norbert,

If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many
times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A
position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I
guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector
involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate,
preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are
mentioning .

With the state-based model that you are defending, do you  really think that
Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian
citizens?  It will be just ironic while you are mentioning  the right of
people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non
democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they
will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against
their policies.

Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian  and coming from developing
region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to
not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I
will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than
their own citizens. 

Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending
cannot be improved at all.

Rafik

Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> a écrit :

TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons.

It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger

today.

Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly

designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy

processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine

the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination.

In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal

construct through which this human right is established is via the

public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples

have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the

right to democratic processes is established.

I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible

model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to

forsake it before a proven alternative is available.

Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states.

From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything.

I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost

every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as

states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the

various examples of totally non-democratic states here.

I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those

proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/

Greetings,

Norbert

Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900

schrieb Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:

Dear Parminder,

To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported

paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of

Principles.)  It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in

Tunis that this language was unacceptable.  To the best of my

knowledge this position has not changed.  As recently as last week in

Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we

oppose paragraph 35.

So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of

civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation

should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with

business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others.

Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles

and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript.  You have

time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today.

Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below.

Please act immediately.

Thank you,

Adam

PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME

DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE

RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA

TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC

POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO

ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY

PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY

MAKING. 

IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT

IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE

ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD

HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL

ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A

REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND

MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR

EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE

IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR

REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE

PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF

DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF

DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER.

BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR

INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME

THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK

YOU. 

CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. 

Tunis Agenda

35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both

technical and public policy issues and should involve all

stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international

organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy

authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign

right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for

international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private

sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the

development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic

fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on

Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue

to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and

should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of

Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations

have also had and should continue to have an important role in the

development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant

policies.

____________________________________________________________

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

____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140502/cf095cb1/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