[governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote:
> I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these
> problems. However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it
> comes to making progress on important matters, nor is its
> inclusiveness brilliant.

I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that
we hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of
that model of which - here's the point - proponents of
multi-stakeholderism have themselves been highly critical!

They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these
implementations have been fiercely resisted.  Do I even need to mention
this?  Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will
keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be
said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in
multi-stakeholder Internet governance?

Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF,
which is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which
reiterates criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the
multi-stakeholder model that we have been repeating endlessly for almost
a decade:

bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/

The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be
attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for
abandoning the ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because
they haven't yet been achieved.  Their achievement will be the work of
decades, not years.

Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism
is not democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if
participants in multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then
everybody, they are "elites".  This reflects a very shallow conception
of democracy, which for example excludes deliberative democratic
practices where in which we attempt to include all affected
/perspectives/, rather than all individuals.

As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to
date.  But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme
that underlies the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is
really nothing more than to realise democratic principles on an
international level where nation states are no longer an adequate fit.

We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views
here that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth
there is on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their
own list where they can advance their models of state-based ordering,
while the rest of can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other
lists without harassment.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141024/b3b676a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141024/b3b676a9/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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