[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Thu Feb 5 18:06:24 EST 2015

Enviado desde mi smartphone BlackBerry 10.
  Mensaje original  
De: willi uebelherr
Enviado: jueves, 5 de febrero de 2015 18:05
Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Responder a: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

Dear Michael, dear friends,

this statement from Michael produced my disagreement.

"So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to 
us to be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis 
of all sovereignty..."

Never have sovereignty to do with democracy. This concept comes from the 
french absolutism (Jean Bodin) and means absolute freedom for any type 
of decision. The parallelism We see in the way how government 
institutions and private companies customize the "Internet" in their 
favor. They can do this because they control the technical resources.

"There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some 
form of democratic and representative structures in place..."

I ask me, Michael, on what planet you live. Democratic and 
representative structures in one combination? On this planet there exist 
no one democratic state system. And this is very simple. Democratic is 
always direct. And all states need the representation. This is the 
basis, why never we can find a "democratic" state.

Yes, we need the sovereignty in the construction of our real InterNet. 
And this sovereignty is always based on our independence in technology. 
Without our technical capacity, we can only ask our absolute ruler.

And parminder formulate it very correct.

many greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia

Am 05/02/2015 um 02:06 p.m. schrieb michael gurstein:
> Good observation David... the issue is that when we were drafting the Delhi
> Declaration it never occurred to any of us that there would be the
> full-throated attack on democracy that is now evident as the underlying
> basis and intent of multi-stakeholderism. Certainly not one that would come
> from within Civil Society.
>
> So it never occurred to us that we needed to spell out what seemed to us to
> be the quite self-evident principle that democracy was the basis of all
> sovereignty, that national sovereignty derived its legitimacy from it being
> based on popular democracy and the absence of popular democracy doesn't mean
> that the principle fails it simply means that it hasn't as yet been (fully)
> realized.
>
> In the real world of course, where decisions are being made, the question
> becomes as you are posing it--do we abandon the democratic principle even
> though it is not fully realized and is in many cases only aspirational or do
> we accept that ultimately global decision making will be a mix of democratic
> values, the national articulation of democratic values and aspirations and
> national representations of national interests many or most of (the latter
> of) which pay only nominal attention to the democratic aspirations of their
> people. That is do we abandon democracy in favour of governance by elites?
>
> There are to my knowledge no countries on earth which do not have some form
> of democratic and representative structures in place. The degree to which
> these are truly democratic and representative (and transparent and
> accountable) varies of course enormously but in many instances they are all
> that is available and they do provide the on-going opportunity for realizing
> the aspirations for popular sovereignty in these countries as others.
>
> The intent that you seem to be arguing for is to abandon "democratic"
> structures and aspirations in favour of self-directed governance by elites
> with no effective measures for representivity, transparency or
> accountability in that governance structure.
>
> It seems to me that it is you who should be providing an explanation and
> rationale for the principles of non-democracy and the anti-democratic
> aspirations and values of multi-stakeholder decision making which go against
> several thousand years of human history and the values and aspirations of
> the vast and overwhelming majority of the global population.
>
> Finally, I fail to see how the organizational form of the JNC as a free
> association of its members and supporters or of its individual or
> organizational supporters is of any relevance in this or any similar
> discussion. If folks of like mind choose to get together to advocate for a
> particular set of norms and values how does that differ from any other free
> association in a democratic structure.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:12 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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