[governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Fri May 2 20:21:48 EDT 2014
The discord is thanks to people who reject multistakeholderism. That includes some government and industry players. That also includes a tiny though long winded splinter group from among civil society. And you speak to us of discord? When actively trying to create it here?
--srs (iPad)
> On 02-May-2014, at 22:28, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
> The take-away lessons of Netmundial are plenty. One of them is discord. Not concord. Thanks to MS.
>
> Thanks also for reminding us who 'owns' the Internet (...seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks...). We should be grateful to them for having the right to enjoy the interconnection of telcos.
>
> Opposing the private sector to make public policy on an equal footing with public authorities is a critical challenge. They might express their views, not decided. This is the business pandora box that you are trying to open. It must be exciting to give it a try. Businesses might try to corrupt the public sector, or play double games (one day at the State Department, next day at Verizon or Comcast, or...) then back to the USG. We know that both the private sector and the public sector have the power to abuse their position. Need examples? But in terms in public policy, this would mean the end of democracy. Some here understand that this IG debate sounds like the perfect case for going beyond democracy. See the Berggruen project, working hand in hand with the big digital rallying to give sense to their 'natural' power.
>
> Shocked by the trillions? Not at all. Shocked by the fact that this power is overwhelming public power and endangering the 'social contract'. See what it is?
>
> You talk XIX century. Read Road to Power by Historian Pr. Jo Guldi (Harvard/Brown) to get an idea of how bad was the British private sector trying to handle transportation over two centuries (with private toll road and private turnpike). It was such a disaster, that it became a necessity to give it back public authorities regulation and management. Now history tells us: beware of the private sector. We can change leaders in Democracy. Shareholders, sometimes, can change their leaders. Not always.
>
> It does not obviate democracy, it just denies it. giving it a seat at the private sector kindergarden is certainly a philanthropic attitude. Not a democratic one.
>
> JC
> (Do we alway need to stipulate that when we write we do it in our humble capacity? )
>
>
>
>> Le 2 mai 2014 à 18:11, Lee W McKnight a écrit :
>>
>> 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 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 NGOs1 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> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140503/80b50592/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