[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Thu Mar 5 23:22:02 EST 2015
As opposed to multilateralism?
Governments, inter governmental organizations, some quangos / gongos and
some 'few innocents' - for which last Lenin had a much more pithy definition.
On March 6, 2015 9:35:56 AM Guru <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
> a thought provoking definition of MSism - system of, by, and for the
> lobbyists (and if I may add + fronts for the lobbyists + few innocents)
>
> Guru
>
> On Friday 06 March 2015 09:17 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> > Yes, yes, yes, for all the talk I tend to agree with Michael
> > Gurstein's summary below, msism appears to be a bit of a "pig in a
> > poke" as the expression goes (an offer to buy something in a bag which
> > you can't look into, only guess that something [good] is in there.)
> >
> > Further, from some of my observation it seems disturbing even on the
> > surface. For one thing there's no indication of how a conflict of
> > interest is handled. Worse, a conflict of interest seems to become a
> > legitimate interest and enfranchised equal.
> >
> > Fully admitting my understanding may be imperfect even if just because
> > understanding may be impossible when a concept is ill-defined the more
> > I hear the more I can't help but think that this is an attempt to
> > codify a system we have developed without really any rules or
> > regulation in the United States Congress.
> >
> > We call it a system of, by, and for the lobbyists.
> >
> > Anyone may lobby the US Congress of course, it is one of the most open
> > processes in the world. It does tend to favor oil lobbyists and auto
> > lobbyists and drug manufacturer lobbyists etc but nonetheless if you
> > wish you may compete for attention as a homeless lobbyist or single
> > mother lobbyist (e.g.) and good luck to you! But nothing prevents such
> > participation and indeed many try. It is democracy red in tooth and
> > claw!
> >
> > There is one critical difference, however. Lobbyists must indirect
> > through congressional representatives who are actually elected by
> > their constituents, one person one vote.
> >
> > This system seems to eliminate that annoying middleman (middleperson?)
> > and just lets the lobbyists introduce and vote on legislation directly
> > as interest, i.e., stakeholder, groups.
> >
> > I am skeptical of everything I wrote above because surely this can't
> > be the case -- everyone here is far too intelligent to want to
> > reinvent the notoriously interested US lobby system as an actual
> > governing structure -- so please disabuse me of these silly notions!
> >
> > From: "Michael Gurstein"<gurstein at gmail.com>
> >> Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in discursive=
> >> rather than declarative mode...
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org]=20
> >> 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 t=
> >> he Dots Conference"
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a global gover=
> >> nance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes?
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite unclear as to w=
> >> hich of the variety of stakeholder models is being proposed at any particul=
> >> ar time or in any particular context, which of course is one of the major s=
> >> ources of hesitation that I have with these kinds of proposals. Before ent=
> >> ering into a decision making process and particularly one that will have re=
> >> al and potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the ru=
> >> les of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are they account=
> >> able 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 an=
> >> d then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: what will actually occ=
> >> ur in a specific decision making context. My own experiences in attempting=
> >> to participate in MS processes as evidenced in my blog give some indicatio=
> >> n at a micro-level of what is involved.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> 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 conditio=
> >> ns 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 proble=
> >> m given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involv=
> >> ed specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably d=
> >> ifferent interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kin=
> >> ds. My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or str=
> >> ess it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged=
> >> insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) an=
> >> d proceed as though nothing had occurred =E2=80=93 in this way they are ach=
> >> ieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflec=
> >> ts 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.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by e=
> >> lites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most =
> >> cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of eff=
> >> ective 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 abo=
> >> ut decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of do=
> >> llars of value. Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil s=
> >> ociety (or government such as those found in many LDC=E2=80=99s for that ma=
> >> tter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be de=
> >> ployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and domin=
> >> ant interests.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> 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 b=
> >> een violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stak=
> >> eholder' started to look like a paradigm.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts =
> >> to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tos=
> >> sing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better=E2=
> >> =80=A6=20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic =
> >> pluralism.=20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the =E2=80=9Cdemo=
> >> cratic=E2=80=9D comes in=E2=80=A6 perhaps you could explain.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way=
> >> as democratic processes.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the p=
> >> ossibility of rectification. With legitimized control by powerful (corpora=
> >> te) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification. Tho=
> >> se interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize th=
> >> eir individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my gover=
> >> nment, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired =
> >> ends =E2=80=93 how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or=E2=80=A6 for =
> >> Google I can=E2=80=99t even find a phone number let alone how I might possi=
> >> bly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree tha=
> >> t we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountabil=
> >> ity and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic d=
> >> ecision making=E2=80=94but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have =
> >> been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an=
> >> undefined =E2=80=9Cpig in a poke=E2=80=9D doesn=E2=80=99t seem to me to be=
> >> a very good social trade off to be making.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> 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 t=
> >> o shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundame=
> >> ntal principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system o=
> >> f government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate u=
> >> s and legitimize powerful interests.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and struc=
> >> tures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. =
> >> Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or b=
> >> een misused or misdirected but that doesn=E2=80=99t mean that the aspiratio=
> >> n of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is=
> >> not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly reject=
> >> ed in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) e=
> >> lites.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, e=
> >> ven if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. An=
> >> d I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Pe=
> >> rhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have.
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> [MG] yes..
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as a=
> >> n appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance.=
> >> Is this the official position of APC?
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> M
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> Shawna
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion...
> >>> =20
> >>> Just a couple of things...
> >>> =20
> >>> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its=20
> >>> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been=20
> >>> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a=20
> >>> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to=20
> >>> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the=20
> >>> context of Internet Governance. APC could (and in my opinion
> >>> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of=20
> >>> democracy as a fundamental governance principle.
> >>> =20
> >>> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear=20
> >>> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of=20
> >>> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear=20
> >>> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on=20
> >>> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a=20
> >>> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who=20
> >>> signed on to this agreement.
> >>> =20
> >>> And please be aware that this is not trivial...
> >>> =20
> >>> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see=20
> >>> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide=20
> >>> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in=20
> >>> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy"=20
> >>> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of=20
> >>> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global=20
> >>> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position?
> >>> =20
> >>> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance=20
> >>> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC and others means that the=20
> >>> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most=20
> >>> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely=20
> >>> ignored, of course further empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is=20
> >>> this APC's preferred position?
> >>> =20
> >>> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action=20
> >>> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in=20
> >>> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others=20
> >>> who are so blithely jumping on the MS
> >>> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
> >>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their=20
> >>> own normative structures...?
> >>> =20
> >>> Best,
> >>> =20
> >>> M
> >>> =20
> >>> =20
> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan=20
> >>> [<mailto:shawna at apc.org> mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:2=
> >> 3 AM To: Michael=20
> >>
> >>> Gurstein Cc:<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbit=
> >> s.net;=20
> >>
> >>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Sub=
> >> ject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at=20
> >>
> >>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >>> =20
> >>> Dear Michael,
> >>> =20
> >>> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the=20
> >>> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your=20
> >>> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of=20
> >>> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy.
> >>> =20
> >>> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been=20
> >>> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various=20
> >>> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it=20
> >>> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support=20
> >>> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively=20
> >>> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights=20
> >>> Council.
> >>> =20
> >>> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing=20
> >>> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced=20
> >>> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation=20
> >>> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet
> >>> governance:
> >>> =20
> >>> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a=20
> >>> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance=20
> >>> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva=20
> >>> Declaration, for =E2=80=9Cthe attainment of a more peaceful, just and=20
> >>> prosperous world.=E2=80=9D
> >>> =20
> >>> (from our submission:=20
> >>> <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
> >>
> >>> )
> >>> =20
> >>> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism'
> >>> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC=20
> >>> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change.
> >>> =20
> >>> Shawna
> >>> =20
> >>> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> >>>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by=20
> >>>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to=20
> >>>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of=20
> >>>> "multistakeholderism=20
> >>>> < <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-interne=
> >> t-governance/>"
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social
> >>
> >>>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of=20=20
> >>>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning"=20
> >>>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the=20
> >>>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally=20
> >>>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil=20
> >>>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide=20
> >>>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I=20
> >>>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent=20
> >>>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being=20
> >>>> evolved") in this sphere.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of=20
> >>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own=20
> >>>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email?
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> M
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From:=20
> >>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
> bestbits-request at lists.bes=
> >> tbits.net
> >>
> >>>> [<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits-request at l=
> >> ists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette=20
> >>
> >>>> 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=20
> >>>> the Dots Conference"
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Dear all
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Just an explanation and some context.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to=20
> >>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and=20
> >>>> secretariat in compiling drafts.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of=20
> >>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC=20
> >>>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the
> >>>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which=20
> >>>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft).
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any=20
> >>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the=20
> >>>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked=20
> >>>> directly to the Study.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to=20
> >>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study=20
> >>>> report rather than in the outcome statement.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the=20
> >>>> discussion.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really=20
> >>>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to=20
> >>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the=20
> >>>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for=20
> >>>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the=20
> >>>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very=20
> >>>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so=20
> >>>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly=20
> >>>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This=20
> >>>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be=20
> >>>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of=20
> >>>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back=20
> >>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having=20
> >>>> 'democratic'
> >>>> =20
> >>>> in front of multistakeholder.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for=20=20
> >>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into=20
> >>>> the text.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder',=20
> >>>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they=20
> >>>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and=20
> >>>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could=20=20
> >>>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference=20
> >>>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not=20
> >>>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that=20
> >>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but=20
> >>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the=20
> >>>> number of requests for putting it in.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated=20
> >>>> in this way.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as=20=20
> >>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in=20
> >>>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the=20
> >>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that=20
> >>>> anonymity is illegitimate.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in=20
> >>>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the=20
> >>>> gains vs. the losses.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses.=20
> >>>> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in the=20
> >>>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its=20
> >>>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people=20
> >>>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn,=20
> >>>> participate and influence internet-related debates with=20
> >>>> policy-makers.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know=20
> >>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they=20
> >>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or=20
> >>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be=20
> >>>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition.
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> Anriette
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>=
> >> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
> >>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> >>>> <<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>>> have global significance?
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> With pleasure. This is why:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> <http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to>=
> >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to
> >>
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> =20
> >>>>>> =20
> >> t
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is=20
> >>>>> JNC's
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position=20
> >>>>> of
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> JNC.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human=20
> >>>>> right,
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be=20
> >>>>> democratic.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this as
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> follows:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Internet that are democratic and participative.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global=20
> >>>>> governance
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> democratic *and* participative.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> our goal, which he describes as =E2=80=9Climited type of government-led
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> rulemaking=E2=80=9D. That would clearly *not* be participative.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and*
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> participative.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Is that so hard to understand???
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite=20
> >>>>> full
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response=20=20
> >>>>> (which
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> <http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm>
> http://justnetcoali=
> >> tion.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Greetings,
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Norbert
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> <http://JustNetCoalition.org> http://JustNetCoalition.org
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>> <<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcauc=
> >> us.org>
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubs=
> >> cribing
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/=
> >> info/governance
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> Translate this email:<http://translate.google.com/translate_t> http:/=
> >> /translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> =20
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ You=20=20
> >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To un=
> >> subscribe or change your settings,=20
> >>
> >>>> visit:<http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestb=
> >> its.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >>>> =20
> >>> =20
> >>> =20
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >> Version: GnuPG v1
> >>
> >> =20
> >>
> >> iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+NckAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKwg8L/iI+89MYOM+3ZTorMwdy4lYs
> >>
> >> uc6P2Kw7uVJt1Soqmk5GqsRp4UQAUUAa4DI/GwjHVf6kFd1iH0y6xle2bAMckv7N
> >>
> >> YZkxCHbs7mo2lmzGf/rXK82RitCvsb39o2b3QavcLiETQMkpDgYebeaOCNftz/vY
> >>
> >> uRVUioALPdwAYZQTp7SwI5d6h2WFzzPKkDyJUx4AysCHGRomVV4v0GOeOiOT2lBN
> >>
> >> coyCfZInGmupR6nfmlxW+MeTRscmueAKBWpu3nbDoA1PU4wurxGVfq/u5vbD88Mo
> >>
> >> VqNBJEit7ctS41CQjTM0/f2Yu2LpbhWcR4Ck8dJBKcQbeL7YtPiec5dNbVcnjdc6
> >>
> >> mf6w4xfvC5o5ka9w9DSAJWKIwWxYR12yoUUZxwtfHzGVESNvudYNxUcRt1pLkrd8
> >>
> >> H5+Z/mF/E0yHfiDObVIbVWat30fMgGpPbVKFHahp+Jln9fTGCkxmxxztGGIofh4V
> >>
> >> Ix9G7lqt+pksPwDcU03p78DorIPavz1IhFjlSAybvQ=3D=3D
> >>
> >> =3DL6ab
> >>
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/170224ae/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