[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

David Cake dave at difference.com.au
Thu Feb 5 10:11:33 EST 2015 

On 5 Feb 2015, at 1:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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…
	
	The JNC position at WGEC was to retain article 35 of the Tunis Agenda, which states
	• 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
	And as far as I am aware nothing has changed. 

	Now, Michael, I have absolutely no issue with you dissenting from the JNC position, but the JNC position certainly appears to be that they support the sovereign right of states over internet policy. 


> 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 doesn’t 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.

	Which is a reasonable position (though I feel it translates very poorly to any sort of intergovernmental process), it just does not appear to be the JNC position. The JNC position as of WGEC was to support the sovereign right of states regardless of their democratic status. And JNC explicitly took this position without support from other civil society participants, but with the support of Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

> 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 …

	Do you think the civil society representatives on NMI are elites? In what sense? 

> 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.
	
	It is odd indeed how much JNC representatives accuse everyone else of being ‘self-selected’ as a criticism. JNC seems to have their share of members who represent organisations with a very small membership that exist for no purpose other than to be vehicles for Internet governance participation. 	

	Regards

		Davids

> 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: 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 <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 <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>  
>  
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
> Mawaki Chango <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
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150205/9875aac1/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

More information about the Governance mailing list