[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

David Cake dave at difference.com.au
Fri Feb 6 01:39:17 EST 2015 

On 6 Feb 2015, at 2:06 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

	I do tend the think that the idea that there is a full-throated attack on democracy from within civil society to be rather hyperbolic.

> 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?

	My answer would start by saying that you have set up a false dichotomy in your final sentence.
	Setting democracy and deliberative multi-stakeholder consensus based decision making as in opposition is unhelpful. Instead, ask how can we make multi-stakeholder processes more democratic. That isn’t trivial. For a start, there is no one simple idea of what it means to be democratic).
	And what does it mean to have governance by elites? There are significant practical issues to overcome - many internet issues are such that anyone who has a thorough understanding may be considered part of a technical elite. And of course there are social mechanisms by which representative democracy tends to create its own 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.

	A good question then would be: why do you consistently treat even massively constrained, subverted/corrupted government processes that proclaim themselves democratic as somehow having more legitimacy than open, transparent multi-stakeholder processes?
	Plenty of nations use the term democracy, and it is astute of you to notice that maybe some of them are not really terribly democratic (i.e. the DPRK, despite having democratic right there in the name, really isn’t all that democratic). I realise that, say, sometimes an authoritarian absolute monarchy that bans elections, political parties, and free speech, but allows some of its citizens to contend for the right to advise it, is sometimes ‘all that is available’, should you live in the KSA. But this reasoning - that because their profoundly anti-democratic government is the only thing available, supporting their primary role in public policy is somehow supporting democracy, seems extremely stretched. Black is white, war is peace, an authoritarian absolute monarchy allowing a minority to stand for election to an advisory council is democracy?

> 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.

	Not at all. My argument is that a very practical method of working towards more democratic structures in Internet governance is to work towards increased representativity, transparency, and accountability within the multi-stakeholder governance structures we have.
	Frankly, I think we have a fair better chance of pushing transparency and accountability and representativity within ICANN than we do of pushing them within existing state based mechanisms for transnational decision making.
	I mean, ICANN has its problems, but contrast it with mechanisms like the TPPA or TTIP, and it doesn’t look so bad - and I think we can force transparency and accountability on ICANN far more easily than we can on the massively subverted international trade processes (and democratic nations are among the worst offenders here).

> 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.

	Oh, please do tell me how multi-stakeholderism is less democratic than the processes of Athenian city-states or Roman Emperors and other governance mechanisms of the last few thousand years.
	Do you really think that not wanting to entrench the primary role of government in Internet governance is against the aspirations of the citizens of China, because they really want their governments censorship policies to be more represented on the global stage? That the people on India are desperate to have government calls for national level censorship given a stronger voice over the many domestic civil society groups that oppose it?
	Hyberbolic rhetoric doesn’t help, but you really do seem to enjoy it.

> 
> 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.

	Do you apply the same criteria to your other civil society colleagues? I’m certainly over being regularly accused of being part of a ‘self selected elite’. My organisation has a membership of several hundred people, and I face regular re-election. As part of that elected role, I participate in civil society processes within ICANN and elsewhere. Am I part of a self-selected elite?

>  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.

	It just contrasts with your frequent rhetorical attacks on your colleagues.
	Regards
		David

> 
> 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 --------------
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/20150206/43441946/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