[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Shawna Finnegan
shawna at apc.org
Fri Mar 6 14:35:44 EST 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear Michael, Parminder
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I will try to respond to the
points that you have both raised, reminding you that I am speaking
from personal opinion, and not as an APC representative.
On 15-03-05 04:20 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 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"
>
>
>
> 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./*
>
sf: That is an interesting analogy for multi-stakeholder processes. As
a relative newcomer, my impression is that the rules of the 'game' are
still being determined, based on some core principles. Given the
complexity of IG history, actors and spaces, as well as the technical
infrastructure and global politics, I am not at all surprised that
these processes continue to change and evolve in different contexts.
However you could certainly make the argument that CS should not
engage in any process without clearly defined rules and structures of
accountability, especially if there is a high risk of capture by
private interests. I'd argue that private interests would continue to
influence the rules to their benefit, but it would at least address
some issues of accountability.
This might be a good point to address Parminder's question to Anriette
on Feb 27:
"Say, for instance, it was found useful to write a global normative
document on the 'role on data in the society', which would enable
countries to begin understanding this new terrain in normative terms
and can help the necessary legislative and regulatory work. (There are
innumerable such important documents, like on health, education, etc
written regularly at UN bodies.) In order to make it more concrete,
let us say, UNESCO was asked to do it. Who do think should make and
decide on the final document - governments, or governments and
corporates on an equal footing?"
Why do you exclude civil society from the decision? My personal
perspective would be for the final document to be agreed upon by as
representative a group of stakeholders as possible. The role of data
in society will be understood differently by individuals within the
technical community, end users, academics, corporations and government
representatives, all relative to where they are in the world and what
their experiences have been. If the document is to have any real
significance, those affected by it must feel they have some ownership
over it, that their perspective of the role of data in society has
been somehow taken into consideration.
How could we go about this in practice? Intensive outreach. Start with
local discussion groups of different stakeholders, ideally open to
anyone interested. These groups could sugget key text, red lines,
whatever they think is important to consider for the document. A few
representatives (chosen by whatever method the group decides is fair)
could then take those views to national and regional discussion groups
of diverse stakeholders. From there another group of regional
representatives would be chosen to engage in drafting the document.
The text would be available online, and representatives at this global
drafting would be responsible for going back to their regional groups,
which would in turn communicate with national and local groups.
It is a complex, expensive and time-consuming proposal, but I think it
would be much more effective than a purely state based process.
> */ /*
>
> */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./*
sf: Could you provide an example of an MS process subject to conflict
or stress that immediately reverted to defensive and controlled mode?
Was your interpretation that the CS involved were privileged insiders,
with their own 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./*
>
sf: I think here we again differ in our expectations of state based
structures of enforcing accountability. Government institutions may
have rules and structures to hold themselves accountable to the
people, but in practice they are incredibly vulnerable to those same
resources that you believe are irresistible to some civil society and
governments in MS processes. The risk of elite interests capturing
decision-making processes is high no matter what you do. Structures of
accountability only work if there is sustained engagement from people
outside the process, particularly civil society and media.
In this regard I think that some of the questions arising in this
UNESCO thread are extremely valuable to the ongoing accountability of
CS engaged in multi-stakeholder processes. Some questions, on the
other hand, are framed purely as accusations, and in my opinion are
intended to divide civil society.
>
>
> */ /*
>
> 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… /*
sf: Who is suggesting that we toss democratic governance?
>
>
>
> */ /*
>
> 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./*
sf: I think the proposal that I suggested above for drafting a
document on the role of data in society is a good example of
democratic decision-making, with multiple layers of representation and
accountability.
>
> */ /*
>
> */ /*
>
> 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.
sf: They maximize profit, so our recourse is to put their profit at
risk. It is not easy, particularly when choices are limited, but civil
society has had past success in pressuring companies to change their
behaviour for the benefit of 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./*
>
sf: I still do not understand why you believe that engaging in
multi-stakeholder processes is effectively tossing out the gains made
in democratic decision-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.
sf: Yes, it is necessary to separate in some way. but also to consider
whether and how the norms and principles of democracy have been
implemented in practice. If our existing structures have been wholly
insufficient to achieve the principles of democracy, then we must
seriously reconsider those structures.
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./*
>
sf: Why must we abandon aspirations towards self-governance,
empowerment and social justice in order to engage in multi-stakeholder
processes?
>
>
> 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../*
sf: I think this returns us to the point raised by Parminder on why CS
at the UNESCO meeting did not put their foot down against those who
said 'democracy has baggage' (in this context). If the individuals
present in the negotiations were representing our wider civil society,
and the consensus of our wider civil society is that democracy must be
included in all documents relating to internet governance, then
perhaps they should have walked out of the negotiations. However, I
don't think that there is necessarily consensus that democracy must be
included in all documents relating to internet governance,
particularly when the link is being made to a multilateral framing.
>
> */ /*
>
> */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?/*
sf: You heard incorrectly. I am simply trying to understand how you
view MS processes to be in direct conflict with democracy, and am
poking a few holes in the perspective that governments are the ideal
gatekeepers of internet policy.
As for APC's official position, I believe that I addressed that
question with the excerpt I sent from the WGEC submission.
Looking forward to your thoughts,
Shawna
>
> */ /*
>
> */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] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael
>
>> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
>
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto: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>
>
>>> [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
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto: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>
>
>>>> <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
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To
> unsubscribe or change your settings,
>
>>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=MVDF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- 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