[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 15:50:30 EST 2015
Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
Just a couple of things...
An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the context of Internet Governance. APC could (and in my opinion should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who signed on to this agreement.
And please be aware that this is not trivial...
The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy" as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC and others means that the necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely ignored, of course further empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is this APC's preferred position?
So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others who are so blithely jumping on the MS bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their own normative structures...?
Best,
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org]
Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Dear Michael,
While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council.
Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet governance:
"Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world.”
(from our submission:
http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf)
There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
Shawna
On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by
> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to
> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of
> "multistakeholderism
> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>"
>
>
and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of
> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning"
> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
>
>
>
> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the
> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally
> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil
> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide
> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I
> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent concern
> for how normative structures are evolving (or "being evolved") in this
> sphere.
>
>
>
> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of
> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own
> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting
> the Dots Conference"
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> Just an explanation and some context.
>
>
>
> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to
> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and
> secretariat in compiling drafts.
>
>
>
> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of
> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
>
>
>
> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC (Richard
> made several editorial suggestions which improved the
> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which greatly
> improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
>
>
>
> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any
> reason other than it came during the final session and the Secretariat
> were trying to keep the document short and linked directly to the
> Study.
>
> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to
> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study
> report rather than in the outcome statement.
>
>
>
> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really
> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to
> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the
> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for
> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the meaning
> of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very particular
> angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so contentious. In the
> Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly linked with the word
> "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This means that
> people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be used to
> diminish the recognition given to the importance of multistakeholder
> participation, and take the debate back intergovernmental oversight of
> IG, will not agree to having 'democratic'
>
> in front of multistakeholder.
>
>
>
> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for
> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into
> the text.
>
>
>
> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder',
> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
>
>
>
> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they
> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and political
> struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
>
>
>
> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could
> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference to
> democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not find
> this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that
> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
>
>
>
> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but
> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the
> number of requests for putting it in.
>
>
>
> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated in
> this way.
>
>
>
> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as
> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in
> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the
> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that
> anonymity is illegitimate.
>
>
>
> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in
> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the gains
> vs. the losses.
>
>
>
> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.
> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in the
> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its
> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people
> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn,
> participate and influence internet-related debates with policy-makers.
>
>
>
> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know
> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they
> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or
> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be the
> values - of the Just Net Coalition.
>
>
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
>
>> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
>
>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
>
>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
>
>>>> have global significance?
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> With pleasure. This is why:
>
>>>
>
>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-
>>> t
>
>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
>
>>
>
>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is JNC's
>
>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position
>> of
>
>> JNC.
>
>>
>
>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
>
>>
>
>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
>
>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human right,
>
>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
>
>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be
>> democratic.
>
>>
>
>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
>
>> follows:
>
>>
>
>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
>
>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
>
>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
>
>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
>
>>
>
>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
>
>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
>
>>
>
>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global
>> governance
>
>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
>
>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
>
>> democratic *and* participative.
>
>>
>
>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
>
>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led
>
>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative.
>
>>
>
>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
>
>> participative.
>
>>
>
>> Is that so hard to understand???
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
>
>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ...
>> the
>
>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite full
>
>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response
>> (which
>
>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
>
>>
>
>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>
>>
>
>> Greetings,
>
>> Norbert
>
>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>
>> http://JustNetCoalition.org
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto: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:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings,
> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- 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