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

Sat Oct 25 05:27:47 EDT 2014

This is one of those rare occasions where I agree with Jeremy

A nation state model does not fit where individual industry and civil 
society stakeholders might find themselves holding entirely different 
positions from a government agency representing their country in a 
particular igov process (and indeed, in the rather unique case of india 
under the previous government, the strange case where one ministry 
enthusiastically supported the multistakeholder model while other agencies 
at other igov events firmly rejected it in favour of multilateral forms of 
governance)

If there is indeed such broad support for multilateral and government 
driven igov, we might as well disband this list and trust to our government 
representatives to represent us adequately in the plenipot and at further 
such events.

On 25 October 2014 12:15:25 am David Golumbia <dgolumbia at gmail.com> wrote:

> Since you did not answer my question the first time, and at least one other
> person has put it a slightly different way, and here you reference
> "state-based ordering" and "nation states are no longer an adequate fit,"
> in both cases directly indicating that states should be bypassed,
> invalidated, or otherwise overcome, I feel it is fair to ask again: is it
> fair to say your political philosophy is anarchism? If so, which variety of
> anarchism? If not anarchism, which non-state philosophy is it? To whose
> political theory should we turn to understand this system in detail? And is
> this an official policy position of EFF?
>
> You are being very critical and dismissive of what you call "harassment"
> and "ingrained views," but I can't read your statements here without them
> entailing some kind of rejection of exactly the political forms to which
> many people who live in democracies are deeply committed. For example: most
> citizens of most democratic countries in the world today believe they have
> elected their governments and entrust them with the power to represent them
> *via* the state. The state is the clearest guarantor of the rights laid out
> in the UN Declaration on Human Rights. It seems a reasonable inference to
> suggest that the great majority of citizens in most (speaking loosely)
> democratic states would not consider the bypassing, invalidation, or
> overcoming of the state to be a welcome political development, especially
> if it is done by any bodies other than the elected governments they have
> put in place. At the very least, they would no doubt demand the right to
> vote on it and to subject it to whatever other tests political changes
> require in their respective states. Further, not putting such a choice
> before them would reject popular sovereignty in the most direct way, thus
> making it very hard to see the change as in any sense "democratic."
>
> I am asking informational questions in an earnest attempt to get a handle
> on who it is that has authorized or is pushing for what appears to be a
> clear rejection of values and principles that the great majority of people
> in the world would be very unlikely to give up (at least not easily), and
> what political system is being recommended to replace it.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
> >  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 Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm@eff.org
> >
> > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> >
> > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> David Golumbia
> dgolumbia at gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141025/171ce71e/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