[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sun Mar 8 05:00:50 EDT 2015
Hi Tarakiyee,
And welcome to this discussion, I believe it is your first contribution but you are the third contributor from APC (or the fourth if we include Jeanette Hoffman who is I believe (along with Avri Doria) an Internet Governance Advisor to APC with both of them being equally strong MSists). (I'm wondering whether there may be some reason for APC to be giving such an emphasis to this discussion (and a quite extraordinary commitment to MSism) that we aren't aware of but maybe that is a discussion for another day...
More inline...
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tarakiyee
Sent: March 7, 2015 2:07 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
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.
[MG] You clearly are unfortunate in your choice of countries and I should say that I'm very unhappy with the state of democratic governance in my own country but not sufficient to abandon an aspiration for democracy in favour of a plunge into the unknown and quite evidently elite driven path of Multistakeholderism. My choice is to redouble my efforts in trying to make democracy work better in my country.
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.
[MG] yes
Multiple stakeholders exist, it's not some wishful invention, and it's the interactions of these multistakholders that has governed the internet so far.
[MG] yes
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.
[MG] sorry I’m not following this… If you are saying that Civil Society has already accomplished a great deal with respect to Internet Governance I would ask that you point to these specific accomplishments. What I see is a more or less out of control dominance by the status quo with little policy advance to check the power of the elites who control that status quo in the crucial areas such as privacy, surveillance, resource (Internet based wealth) distribution, concentration of decision making power, increasing corporate control and so on… but maybe I’m missing something.
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.
[MG] Again I think it is important to distinguish between processes of consultation where multistakeholder along with other processes of participation and engagement are absolutely desirable and processes of decision making which require a degree of formality, structure, broad based accountability, inclusiveness, and transparency – none of which characterize Multistakeholder processes as currently constituted.
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.
[MG] But again, this is not simply about “words”… it is about the fundamental norms and mechanisms going forward for global (Internet) governance and the quite visible attempt to suppress democracy as the basis for those norms and mechanisms with the substitution of elite based multistakeholder processes in their place—a process which I’m sure your colleagues in APC can describe to you as one that has been gathering momentum for roughly a decade. And as an addendum it is quite clear from various statements and documents from the US government and others such as the WEF that the intention is that while MSism is being piloted in the Internet Governance sphere the intention is to ensure that it becomes the global norm in the widest possible range of areas of global decision making.
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.
[MG] Again I agree with this but I think equally it is at times necessary to take a principled stand and for me the visible act of suppression of a commitment to democracy and social justice as was quite evident in this UNESCO enterprise is one of those occasions.
M
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> mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: March 7,
> 2015 9:37 AM To: <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein;
> Benedek, Wolfgang; <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 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
> ( <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> [ <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
> To: <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 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> mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> <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> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> <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>
> <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> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> <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> mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>> <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:
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/213a7ca6/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