[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Thu Feb 5 00:54:26 EST 2015

Ahh David, I think you have got it wrong certainly for me and I would guess
for the JNC. 

I, at least, believe in the sovereign right of the people not of nations
(or governments or states

In some instances this sovereign right is able to be exercised through the
democratic processes governing the actions of nations in other instances
(dictatorships, autocracies, oligarchies, etc.) this is not possible.  This
latter case doesnt remove the sovereign right of the people nor is it
transferred in these instances to the nation, rather these sovereign
rights await appropriate means/modalities for a democratic execution. 

And, now that I think about it, with the formation of the NMI one can start
talking simply about elites as the governing structures of these
multi-stakeholder processes 
 Of course, these folks are self-selected in
their governance role while their being elites derives from their position
of power in various economic, political and social structures or as
courtiers to those who do.

M

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:50 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

On 2 Feb 2015, at 9:07 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 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.

            JNC supports the sovereign special rights of undemocratic
nations too, as you are well aware Michael. Until JNC addresses that, all
this talk of democracy raises more questions than it answers. 

            And of course, we now understand self appointed elite to be
JNC speak for those who choose to show up to open fora. The JNC attitude,
given the number of decisions it makes without even consulting with civil
society colleagues, would seem to be that they should do the appointing. I
make no apology for not being very keen on that. 

            David

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:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
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:
      <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
      <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
      <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
      <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
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/20150204/70501a62/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