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

[parminder]

On Friday 02 May 2014 09:41 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance
>

Involvement? well, no. Can you point to where did anyone oppose their 
'involvement' in Internet governance. Lee, even if we may have different 
views, may I request that we try and represent other people's positions 
fairly and honestly?  The opposition is to 'equal' role' in 'public 
policy' 'decision making'..... Each element is separately highlighted so 
that you miss none... And I think I would have done this - highlighting 
all these elements -   at least 25 times earlier on these lists, if not 
more.


> seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being 
> inter-networked across the Internet;
>

So, since drug companies make all the medicine, they should have an 
'equal role' in health/ drug related 'public policy making'? Please be 
explicit in your response. Such examples can be given in practically all 
sectors... As Mahesh said, since 'production/ business' is not the 
business of governments that should not mean that regulating business is 
also not their business.. That precisely is their business. You would 
have heard the term regulatory capture - that is what is it to have (the 
regulated) businesses given an equal role in relevant public policy making.


> 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.
>

Big business as citizens, well!! Indian law does not recognise business 
as citizens... I know lately US supreme court have shown the tendency 
towards such a perversion, like in the ruling on corporate financing of 
elections, but I know that this judgement is widely opposed by civil 
society even within the US...It surprises me therefore that you are 
expressing such a view rather easily..

I  dont agree that businesses are citizens - national or global - and 
have citizen rights, nor does all the civil society groups that I work 
with, and I can assure you that, at least in developing countries, they 
are the overwhelming majority (i know it is so in developed countries as 
well).

I think we need to figure out our basic political positions and bearings 
here, in our internal civil society discourses, before we begin raising 
banners about who represents civil society interests and who does not.

parminder

>
> 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 couldn’t 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 it’s so important that 
> they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global 
> solution networks—and 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* wasn’t 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 McKinsey’s Rik 
> Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is 
> different—and why business must play a central role in solving global 
> problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows.
>
>
>         Interview transcript
>
>
>       A new model for solving global problems
>
> There’s a fundamental change that’s 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, they’re 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 that’s radically dropping 
> transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s 
> 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, it’s changing the way that we get capability to 
> create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get 
> capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we 
> disaggregate that process and start to bring together new 
> partnerships, new multistakeholder networks?
>
> A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new 
> “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no 
> corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t 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^1 
> <http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/The_flow_of_governance_An_interview_with_Don_Tapscott?cid=other-eml-alt-mgi-mck-oth-1405#> at 
> Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the 
> world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming 
> together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re 
> multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. 
> They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, 
> governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily 
> basis.
>
> And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every 
> problem that we have. And they’re 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 that’s 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 didn’t. But 
> increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re 
> going to get naked, and you’ve 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 can’t succeed in a world that’s 
> 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 it’s so important that they understand the rise 
> of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and 
> 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 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20140503/41376230/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