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

Fri May 2 23:16:43 EDT 2014

Hi Norbert,

Thanks for the response,

Rafik, you are attacking a straw-man position, which has nothing to do
> at all with my position or values or the proposal that I included a
> link to.
>
> I was not judging you, that is not my goal.

> I am very much in favor of open multistakeholder processes with full
> involvement of all interested parties, including the private sector,
> for the development of policy proposals, including coordination of
> proposals with the goal of minimizing problems when different
> countries choose to adopt different public policy options.
>

good to hear that you are in support of multistaekholder process, that was
not indicated in your first message.

>
> In my view, the attempt should always be made to reach a full global
> multistakeholder consensus. This will not always succeed, but even if
> it doesn't succeed, much can be learned through participation in a
> well-run multistakeholder consensus process with participants of
> diverse backgrounds. Often the result of such a process will not be
> consensus but a much improved understanding of where the real problems
> are in terms of significantly conflicting interests, and what the
> benefits and drawbacks of different possible and justifiable policy
> choices are in regard to the legitimate interests of different
> stakeholder groups. These insights should then be provided to national
> parliaments so that the choice between different public policy
> possibilities, each justifiable and right from some perspective, will
> be made in a democratic manner, on the basis of the best possible
> information.
>
>
again good to see your explanation for supporting the multistakeholder
model with such level of details.  I responded to your when you were
defending the state based model and giving privileges to governments even
when you recognise the drawbacks.

In regard to your point about non-democratic states: They obviously
> have a totally broken governance system. They obviously violate the
> human rights of the people living there. But neither of those points
> should be allowed to stop the people living in parts of the world where
> the governments are to a significant degree democratic (like is the case
> for me) from being allowed to insist that we value democracy, and
> we don't want to lose it, even when the line between Internet
> governance and traditional areas of governance is becoming more and
> more blurred.
>

so you don't propose any alternatives for those under authoritarian regimes
and want to keep a system silencing them because it may work for you as
swiss citizen ? how can this embed the democracy values you are defending?

Rafik

>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140503/eb267cf3/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