[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Tarakiyee
tarakiyee at apc.org
Sat Mar 7 17:07:08 EST 2015
Dear all,
"ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any
consistent definition either in theory or in practice," is exactly how
some people from my country would describe their experience with
democracy. We live in a complex world, perhaps even as complex as the
Internet we are discussing how best it be governed.
Intersecting systems of oppression such as colonialism, patriarchy,
classism and supremecy, mean that any particapatory decision making
model would favour some over others. Likewise, the internet is not
flat, power and control is concentrated in some places more than the
others, such as corporates, governmental agencies, quasi-govermental
entities and multi-lateral agencies.
Multiple stakeholders exist, it's not some wishful invention, and it's
the interactions of these multistakholders that has governed the
internet so far. If it wasn't for the hard work of civil society,
there would have been little or no transperancy, no marginalised
voices, and possibly a lot of elitism. If this is the supposed goal of
the so called "MS proponents" as outlined in the thread above, then
the status quo was already much better than whatever "they" would hope
to achieve.
Needless to say, I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I, as many
others, would like to see the interactions of these multistakeholders
become more transperant, inclusive and democratic, and in that
context, I don't see multistakeholder participation as existing for
multistakeholderism's sake, but rather as a means to achieve
inclusive, transperent, and democratic internet governance.
Am I disappointed to see the word "democratic" not included in the
outcome document? I am, but I won't lose any sleep over it. There is
so much more to take out of the outcome document in order to develop
an equal, just and democratic internet. It certainly won't be easy to
do so, but on the other hand, commitment to democracy in IG also won't
hinge on one document or two.
That is of course not meant to minimize the importance of these
discussions and concerns, I only mean to point to the other equally
important battles being fought. A strong, principled, and nuanced
approach in engagement with a variety of actors is the strongest tool
we have. A constantly adverserial position can be disadvantagous and
draining, especially if it makes us lose sight of gains we achieve.
Tarakiyee
Views here are my own.
On 07/03/15 21:08, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Wolfgang,
>
> The issues that you mention of interest to CS are of course
> important and should be addressed by CS in all cases, but there is
> also the overall necessity to ensure that the broad framework of
> decision making and the normative structures which underlie this
> are supportive of the general good (including of course, civil
> society).
>
> The problem is that in the MS model there is no one to protect the
> public interest... as was quite evident in this UNESCO instance
> where the entire process seems to have been captured by MSists from
> the very beginning (surely a framing in terms of democratic values
> and social justice is a minimum expectation).
>
> As I think is quite evident in this particular instance as with
> others where a MS approach is allowed to frame the discussion, it
> is not clear at all that the general good is being or will be
> pursued.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: March
> 7, 2015 9:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael
> Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best
> Bits Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
> This discussion is bizarr.
>
> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access,
> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education,
> capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can
> achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other
> stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is
> involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil
> society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder
> approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision
> making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community
> level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with
> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the
> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making
> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and
> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy
> issues". The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive
> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states
> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on
> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders.
> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have
> to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference
> offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is
> needed.
>
>
>
>
> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the
> understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet"
> but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize
> democracy in the context of the Internet something with which I
> (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been advocating
> for a long time.
>
>
>
> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed
> consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least
> based on my quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department,
> sufficient comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr.
> Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State
> Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy.
> Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to
> "force" it into international documents.
>
>
>
> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for
> multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates
> acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context
> and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in
> practice.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang
> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re:
> [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of
> "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>
>
> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of
> democratic governance and a holistic approach to human rights
> although not as an alternative to multistakeholderism, the
> potential of which in my view still needs to be developed.
>
>
>
> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to
> include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept
> supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively
> in the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the
> UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the
> concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware
> that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at
> all.
>
>
>
> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these
> discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values,
> but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a
> lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic
> Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the
> Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for
> a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the
> context of the internet among civil society and academia first
> before forcing it into international documents.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't
>> simply a
>
>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document"
>> but
>
>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to
>> promote
>
>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>
>>
>
>> M
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>
>> [ <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>
>
>> Klein
>
>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>
>> To: <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>> Ceremony
>
>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>
>> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>
>> wrote:
>
>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference
>>> Connecting the
>
>>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is
>>> important to
>
>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was
>>> to
>
>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on
>>> the
>
>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several
>>> plenary and
>
>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>
>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it
>>> into the
>
>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all
>>> work in
>
>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only
>>> partly
>
>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were
>>> elaborated
>
>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in
>>> order to
>
>>> deepen their understanding.
>
>>>
>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>
>>
>
>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>
>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>> only
>
>> partly included."
>
>>
>
>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a
>> similar
>
>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I
>> would
>
>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference,
>> could
>
>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
>> only
>
>> partially, included.
>
>>
>
>> Thanks in advance,
>
>>
>
>> Norbert Klein
>
>> Cambodia
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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