[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Tue Feb 3 09:23:11 EST 2015

Overall deferring to Sean’s excellent commentary let me just say (actually repeating since we have had this exact same discussion at least once before and my argument is clearly outlined in various of my blogposts.

“Democracy” for me is a principle of governance and does not refer to one or another instrumentality/mechanism of governing.  As a principle and at its most general, democracy points to governance by and for “the people” -- referring to how and to whom power is distributed (or derived) in relation to governmental decision making.  “Multi-stakeholderism”, whatever the lipstick you choose to apply is about power being distributed to/exercised by and for the few and selective, i.e. “stakeholders”, as Sean very effectively pointed out.

If we begin from the conventional definition of democracy that I’ve pointed to above then we are, of course challenged in how we realize this principle in a practical context. Since practical contexts change, the specific realization (mechanics of exercising democracy) will vary, and will, depending on the particular context include the modalities of the exercise of democracy you are mentioning below among others. 

I think for various reasons particularly because of technology change and attendant changes such as globalization, we are currently in a period of change for the methods/institutions of realizing democracy.  This does not mean that we should reject the principle and go off in search of a new principle of how power is to be distributed but rather we must work to re-adapt the institutional mechanisms for how democracy is realized in our new i.e. Internet enabled practical context.

So the democracy vs. multistakeholderism discussion is at its most basic quite simple—either you direct your efforts to building methods/institutions that support governance by and for the people, or you direct your efforts to building methods/institutions that support governance by and for elites; or as in the case of the NMI, building institutions/mechanisms for governance by and for an elite—the WEF 1%.

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:18 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Hi,

i tried to put it neutrally, quoting from an ITU document on the position that I did not hold.

We obviously have very different views on democracy.  I believe in a model of participatory democracy the includes representative democratic actors and falls just short of direct democracy on every issue but includes lots of open to all comment periods and consultations. Since you do not consider that democracy, I have no idea what you might mean by democracy.  I tend to not include dictatorships, autocratic monarchies and theocracies in the set of democratic models.

avri

On 02-Feb-15 14:07, michael gurstein wrote:

Errr… yes, there is a fundamental difference between those who believe in and the democratic governance of the Internet and those who believe in the governance of the Internet by a self-appointed (multistakeholder) elite.

M 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:50 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Hi,

While i think it would be lovely if Civil society could speak with one voice, given the fundamental differences between those who support multistakeholder distributed mechanisms on Internet policy issues and those who support sovereign special rights on international Internet public policy issues, it seems highly unlikely.

On some ancillary issues we may reach a consensus, but on the most fundamental, that is unlikely.  I think IGC should focus on those other issues, such as modality for open participation etc where we made indeed be able to speak in a common voice and perhaps able to influence things in a direction the various camps can all accept.  While I accept using the IGC as a discussion place for the larger issues, I do not think we should expect to reach consensus on these issues.

avri

On 01-Feb-15 13:01, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

Hi

thx. for the discussion.

The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". 

If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..

Wolfgang

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow  <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

...
 WK is
calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".

So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
voice" says concretely!

I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
(Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
the issue implied by my statement.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow  <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
Mawaki Chango  <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
voice.

In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.

So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
(you choose your preferred adjective)?
Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
cannot always
do)
and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.

In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
untie (solve) in order to be functional again.

Mawaki

In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
than it would claim to be.

Greetings,
Norbert

____________________________________________________________
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/20150203/b1040405/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