[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

[Michael Gurstein]

Shawna,

 

Inline 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org] 
Sent: March 6, 2015 11:36 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

 

-----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:

> 

> */[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.

 

[MG] yes

 

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.

 

[MG] I'm not sure that I understand your point here... Is that CS (or anyone) should engage in MS processes even if they are undefined, and "without clearly defined rules and structures of accountability" on the (dare I say) probably rather remote possibility of being able to "address some issues of accountability"... unfortunately I fear, a rather David and Goliath struggle where David doesn't even have a workable slingshot...

 

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.

 

[MG] This is an interesting and useful proposal and certainly worth considering and experimenting with... But I think what you have described is a multi-stakeholder consultation process which I completely support and in fact think is absolutely necessary for reasons I outline in this blogpost https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/  This, perhaps you will agree, is quite some distance from the process you are describing coming up with for example a firm and enforceable policy/legislation for example concerning data privacy or freedom of expression/censorship.

 

> */ /*

> 

> */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?

 

[MG] https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/

 

I should also note that the much vaunted model multistakeholder process at the NetMundial event in Brazil did more or less precisely the same thing--giving over to an unrepresentative and more or less completely non-transparent academic grouping -- GIGAnet -- responsibility for "academic" participation in the various NM structures. 

 

GIGAnet then  went on to assign all of the relevant places to GIGAnet insiders over the objections of the academic component of the Community Informatics community (a grouping numbering some 1500 of which perhaps 40% are academics or researchers with a professional interest in ICTs and Development, a subject more or less completely absent in the GIGAnet membership).  

 

These actions were confirmed by the silence of the NM organizers (the issue was brought firmly to their attention).  The direct consequence of this was that the NM meeting and subsequent document more or less completely ignores the significant issues involved in ICTs and Development and which moreover were as I'm sure you know, the fundamental driver of WSIS of which the NM was meant to be some sort of a descendent.

> 

> */ /*

> 

> */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.

 

[MG] I completely agree but with effective and "sustained engagement from people outside the process, particularly civil society and media" who, over the long run do you think can be made to be accountable--Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon or an elected government?

 

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.

 

[MG] But if certain CS organizations are prepared to collaborate with certain governments and others in the broad based attempt to suppress democracy (in Internet Governance and elsewhere) and substitute elite (MS) decision making in its place, then perhaps it is a good thing for others not directly involved in these processes to see who is collaborating in these efforts and who isn't.

 

> 

> 

> */ /*

> 

> 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?

 

[MG] Isn't that what Anriette and other have said happened in the drafting group for the UNESCO statement (and which is directly evidenced by the absence of any reference to democracy and Internet Governance  in the final statement) and which was a red line which she and others apparently representing Civil Society were prepared to cross.

> 

> 

> 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.

 

[MG] As I noted above the example you have given is one of consultation not of decision making.

> 

> */ /*

> 

> */ /*

> 

> 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.

 

[MG] No question but this is hardly a substitute for achieving enforceable laws backed by state sanctions which would cover not all companies and circumstances rather than just the very few that CS would have the resources and capacity to influence. This has been the traditional direction for civil society action world-wide and the reason why CS has been so active in support of democracy and attempting to ensure the effectiveness and accountability of democratic structures of governance… Honestly I see no reason why in the Internet Governance sphere this approach should be abandoned, do you? 

 

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.

 

[MG] Of course I don’t see that MS processes would result in a “tossing out of gains made in democratic decision-making”… I’m quite sure that no citizenry in the world would allow that… what I’m arguing is that there is a concerted attempt to replace democratic structures of decision-making by MS processes of decision making going forward which is something quite different and which actions such as those of the USG and its allies in this very specific context are to my mind a clear indication of.

> 

> 

> 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.

 

[MG] I agree… but that doesn’t mean that we jettison fundamental norms and principles of democracy in the process. What it means rather is that we need to redouble our efforts at designing effective structures and making existing structures work better.  Tossing out 1000 years of struggle towards democratic accountability in favour of a completely unknown and shape-shifting set of memes such as multi-stakeholderism seems to me to be foolhardy in the extreme and more likely to be serving the interests of the few who are in a position as “key stakeholders” to derive direct benefits from such a change than to provide any advantage or benefit to the many.

 

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?

 

[MG] Perhaps you could explain to me or even better point me to instances where MS processes have enabled “self-governance, empowerment and social justice” rather than ensuring outcomes move in exactly the opposite direction.  The MS processes that I’ve seen have all been those moving in the opposite direction.

> 

> 

> 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.

 

[MG] Democracy is democracy… if one is attempting to characterize Internet Governance it is either democratic or it is not… In this instance the decision was clearly made that it would not be characterized by democratic structures/processes. The issue of “multilateral framing” is a complete red herring… If some choose to link democracy with multilateral processes in their own minds that is their problem and should not become a determining factor in other people’s minds or decision making.  Words say what they say.

> 

> */ /*

> 

> */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, 

 

[MG] I’ve been extremely clear in these list based discussion, in my blogposts and in various other interventions… I don’t think that MS consultation processes are in direct conflict with democracy but I do think that MS decision processes are.  

 

 

and am poking a few holes in the perspective that governments are the ideal gatekeepers of internet policy.

 

[MG] I have never said nor implied any such thing! I believe that democracy (not governments) is and needs to be the “ideal gatekeeper of Internet policy”, precisely how that democratically anchored decision making takes place will vary from circumstance to circumstance (including democratic practice through and by governments) and should be actively evolved in current circumstances given the oft noted (by me and others) failings of current democratic practice and further given the opportunities for enhanced democratic practice through the effective application of ICTs.

 

 

As for APC's official position, I believe that I addressed that question with the excerpt I sent from the WGEC submission.

 

[MG] okay

 

M

 

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> 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:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;

> 

>>  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

>> < <mailto: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.pd> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pd

>> f

> 

>>  )

> 

> 

> 

>> 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>

> 

>>> [ <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

>>> < <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

> Cc:  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

> < <mailto: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> 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> 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>

> 

>>>> < <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

>>> < <mailto: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> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

> 

>>> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1

 

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+gGPAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKT/kL/1AVB2elHc3cWbgrNtyqLlyF

6A5/Pp+1wXupLU90KOqrXtnfizQeTUlocazv/2ywf5KyjAHeFpk0Z8kzf0Ik2iwh

maZ83sm9bh9hlJ74ZFCmHh9nuvUOnmT4u+dBxSQHhx9T3UKiHM8pAOtQJFNoG7dH

KlhyeszzYoeyCm+9/h7nBjVRmcpkkts+hUM/fFXLSRRMgLIVbWS2/Wj01pgZehbI

puWiPfO4ucSFusN/Ny38KRWS0zdQCCW0QczeTRJE4EHRjpKV06Jpgao99nX2mkVH

WWQUdWEoMpyLfPEpzjAqZRIMTKjg+zbyyaXgBPe+AACd7K6kgx69dlIvcsTCDkk8

YslRB5yZmo4WO05mXXWMOtZ+h5/iVpNJWZCzBgGB0/vVldMm593/qZOqgixpweks

FUxHvzpon0aqEUm2PCAV1Rr8TjOOmUHpwQvSgLWCVr8Ro32pxmVnuKU+XH8k3nc0

DxY7+D2Da+uBkax/NSXSW5vN+Ri/JY7Ghum5+03eKw==

=MVDF

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150306/b91adade/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