[governance] Roles and Responsibilities

Sat May 3 06:20:38 EDT 2014

Hi,

I do not understand some of the discussions around multistakeholderism VS. (representative) democracy. This is not a "red corner vs. blue corner" issue, this is movong from "Level 1" to "Level 2". The multistakeholder model does not kill democracy, it enhances democracy and adds to its representative nature more participative elements. Civil Society gets a second channel to participate in policy development. It can elect its representatives in a democratic society and it gets an additional voice at the global negotiation table. As the Internet Governance definition, adopted in Tunis, has said: It is about "sharing of decision making capacity" with regard to the "evolution and use of the Internet". With other words, Civil Society gets a say in policy development processes amd decision making on the global level. I can not see that this reduces democracy. It enhances it.

On level 1 you have different forms of (representative) democracies, good and bad examples. It depends on the government and the whole constitution. Switzerland is certainly a good example with its options to have direct decisions on various issues. The Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is obviously a bad example. India is the largest democarcy in the world. Denmark has also a very advanced democratic system. I have my doubts about democracy in the new Lybia, in Syria, South Sudan or Iraq. It could be  much better in Indonesia, Paraguay or Venezuala. 

On level 2 we have not so many different examples of Multistakehoderism. But the ICANN model is rather different from WSIS. IGF is different from UNCSTD, IETF different from RIRs. And Net Mundial has produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of democracy/multistakeholderism. 

In a democracy it is the separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. 

Any deal betwen governments and private sector which excludes civil society is not multistakeholderism. This is bad bi-stakeholderism or in the worst case the handover of decision making capacity from one stakeholder (government) to another stakeholder (industry).  Don´t confuse one- or bi-stakeholderism with multistakeholderism.    

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak
Gesendet: Sa 03.05.2014 05:43
An: Jean-Christophe Nothias
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; Adam Peake; parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation

Cher Jean-Christophe, 

honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email:
- you always attack people, label, name and categorise them  in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments.  do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me.
- again you make tenuous and flimsy  association to things that I never said  or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread.
- you mention other statements like those made  Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them.
- I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. 

finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares.
Merci et bon vent.

Best,

Rafik 

ps "You have the floor on this."?  seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here  verbatim :  "no kidding!"

2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com>:

	If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert.

	Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game.

	Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue?

	I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector  and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word.

	Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model.

	You have the floor on this.

	JC

	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:

	>     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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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