[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 18:20:13 EST 2015
Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in discursive rather than declarative mode...
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org]
Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM
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"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michael,
Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a global governance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?
[MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite unclear as to which of the variety of stakeholder models is being proposed at any particular time or in any particular context, which of course is one of the major sources of hesitation that I have with these kinds of proposals. Before entering into a decision making process and particularly one that will have real and potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the rules of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are they accountable to and how, what overall structures of accountability will be in place, what decision making rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so on. Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it is rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into the meme and then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: what will actually occur in a specific decision making context. My own experiences in attempting to participate in MS processes as evidenced in my blog give some indication at a micro-level of what is involved.
Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will. My observation is that MS processes do not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involved specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably different interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kinds. My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or stress it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) and proceed as though nothing had occurred – in this way they are achieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to divergent positions and interests.
Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of effective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the absence of some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing accountability, transparency etc. In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of value. Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil society (or government such as those found in many LDC’s for that matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and dominant interests.
I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a paradigm.
[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better…
Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic pluralism.
[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain.
Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way as democratic processes.
[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the possibility of rectification. With legitimized control by powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification. Those interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize their individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a phone number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountability and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic decision making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be a very good social trade off to be making.
Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping to shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system of government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate us and legitimize powerful interests.
[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and structures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean that the aspiration of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly rejected in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) elites.
I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, even if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
[MG] yes..
BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance. Is this the official position of APC?
M
Shawna
On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 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> mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael
> Gurstein Cc: <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 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> 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/> 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:
>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [ <mailto: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:
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 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 < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> 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> 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> 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> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>
>>> Norbert
>>
>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>>
>>> <http://JustNetCoalition.org> http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto: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:
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings,
>> visit: <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=L6ab
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150305/56c267c9/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list