[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Sun Mar 8 11:34:17 EDT 2015
Amazing. A third way that still works out in favor of the multilateral
advocates
If it walks like a multilateral duck, if it quacks like a multilateral duck..
On March 8, 2015 9:01:14 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
<jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> > The merits of democracy are not being argued (GREAT NEWS!!) here as much
> as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context
> in UN circles.
> >
> Solely? No. This is solely your assumption.
> In a multilateral context? No, wrong again. One problem that do have MSists
> is their dear denial of any role to governments. MSits favorite sport is
> governmental bashing (except for USG, the good guy of their story).
> In UN circles. No. Most of its use happens outside the UN, in civil life.
>
> > Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.
> >
>
> Would it be "through consensus" democracies would have gone no way. A
> majority, made by honest voting in a clear constitutional framework, can
> only exercise the will of the people. A consensus can be a good warning
> paving the way to a new collective rule, still a vote might often turn it
> into something that will be respected, transparent and accountable.
> Consensus is a very vague process, easily flawed. Rough consensus is even
> worse. Again governance is no to be built on techies's philosophy of daily
> practice. Consensus related to governance fits to capos and rubber barons.
> Not to public policy making (which is where we do have a fight).
>
> > The question here is what political significance will get attached to
> that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly
> favors multilateral governance structures.
> >
>
> Especially when its very existence is denied by MSits who, amusingly,
> claimed to be MSits for the sake of democracy. MSits know better what the
> people need.
>
> No, JNC is not favoring Multilateral governance. This another assumption is
> a lie. JNC is advocating a third way. Most MSists are bodyguards to the
> status-quo. We see it in any list, any venue. We have seen it again during
> the connecting the dots, or the Dotting the I's, as Louis Pouzin put it.
>
>
>
>
> Le 8 mars 2015 à 14:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>
> > The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the tendency
> for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles.
> >
> > Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic.
> The question here is what political significance will get attached to that
> word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors
> multilateral governance structures.
> >
> > On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik
> <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think
> the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe
> described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand
> athttp://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency,
> participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions
> that grew out of technical work on making the internet.
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s
> >>
> >> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency,
> participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a
> social and political program".
> >>
> >> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance?
> >>
> >> Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of
> connected dots?
> >>
> >> //Erik
> >>
> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder
> [parminder at itforchange.net]
> >> Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16
> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael
> Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony
> of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >>
> >> And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related
> global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that
> Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is
> happening quite fine?)
> >>
> >> If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role
> as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal
> footing, in Internet-related global policy decision making - that is
> enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind
> us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on
> making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple
> democratic principles and ideals.
> >>
> >> Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are
> evident here, which so many find so unsightly?
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that
> they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back
> immediately on that.
> >>
> >> Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of
> differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email
> exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and
> feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek
> closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise
> differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we
> will be making progress.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
> >>> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and some other
> emails of a similar kind.
> >>>
> >>> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the
> circularity with some specifics.
> >>>
> >>> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism
> (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in
> IG docs.
> >>>
> >>> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an
> impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted
> that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of
> such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in
> this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and
> JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed.
> >>>
> >>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus
> on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about
> 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic?
> Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive
> word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole
> thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we
> will always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place.
> Lets please be fair here.
> >>>
> >>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at
> the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term
> 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole
> space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong
> denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have
> been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the
> 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this
> other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if
> the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here.
> Anyone?
> >>>
> >>> parminder
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/87899893/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