[governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)

Sun Mar 8 13:19:14 EDT 2015

I'm sure we can toss theoretical schema's around forever (600 pages !?!) but
I think it may be more useful to deal with the practice.  I hardly need to
point to instances of democratic practice with socially desirable outcomes
in all areas, at all levels, over the last 1000 years or so… As for the
practical examples of multistakeholder processes, apart from those encased
in technical issues and the technical community I’m not so sure… However in
the spirit of open inquiry I'm specifically asking for successful instances
of multistakeholder decision making that we can look at, analyse and assess
apart from those which are continuously referred to from within the
technical community ecosystem.

In that instance I'll repeat my question concerning the purportedly
"successful
<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/news-a
nd-in-focus-articles/all-news/news/a_multi_stakeholder_gathering_adopts_an_o
utcome_document_at_the_connecting_the_dots_conference/#.VPrafDWgmPQ> "
“multistakeholder” process which was the method for preparing the UNESCO
conference Outcome Document…

Here, so far undisputed is how I described this process in an earlier email
“As an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes might
actually operate in practice one need only reflect on the processes of
decision making that went into this purportedly multistakeholder Output
Document -- the highly questionable and completely non-transparent selection
of the editorial committee (from a small circle of the Internet Governance
elite), where potentially critical but equally qualified participants were
excluded, where dissenting voices and positions were suppressed, with a
complete lack of accountability to presumed constituencies or "stakeholder"
groups,  and where the outcome was presented quite falsely as a "consensus"
document and output of the associated meeting.”

This is from UNESCO’s press release
<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/news-a
nd-in-focus-articles/all-news/news/a_multi_stakeholder_gathering_adopts_an_o
utcome_document_at_the_connecting_the_dots_conference/#.VPx8UuG2pq9>
concerning the Outcome Document “A multistakeholder group worked
continuously during the conference to synthesise several rounds of feedback
into an outcome document that could reflect the points of consensus. The
group suggested that a number of proposals to add more detail and additional
debates into the final Outcome Document, would be better reflected with the
study. Leading the multistakeholder group was Mr William Dutton, Quello
Professor, Michigan State University, who had earlier helped UNESCO to
synthesise the many responses and inputs into the draft study. … Other group
members, reflecting a range of constituencies, included Ms Albana Shala,
Chair of UNESCO’s International Programme for Development of Communication
(IPDC); Ms Chafica Haddad, Chair of UNESCO’s Information For All Programme
(IFAP); Mr Jānis Kārkliņš, Chair of Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)
for Internet Governance Forum; Ms Constance Bommelaer, Internet Society
(ISOC); Ms Ellen Blackler, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); Ms
Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communication (APC);  Ms
Rana Sabbagh, Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ) and Mr
Erick Iriarte, IALaw.” 

Yes, I think it is a very good idea to finally start discussing specifics.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: March 8, 2015 9:27 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] Response to Jeremy's insinuations (was Re: Remarks
at UNESCO Closing Ceremony...)

On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> 

> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800

> Jeremy Malcolm < <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> 

>> So JNC is in exactly the same position as that for which it 

>> (particularly Michael) regularly lambasts the pro-multi-stakeholder 

>> people.  In fact, we have more concrete proposals than you do!

> 

> Where are your concrete proposals? Do you have links for them, like I 

> have given a link to my proposal? (  <http://WisdomTaskForce.org>
http://WisdomTaskForce.org .)

If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up on.  Start
at GigaNet ( <http://giga-net.org/> http://giga-net.org/).  For a less
academic, higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to
NETmundial ( <http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs>
http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs).  For my own part, you're
already aware that seven years ago I published over 600 pages on how the IGF
could become a multi-stakeholder body that makes public policy
recommendations, and released it under Creative Commons at
<https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401->
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0980508401- surely that counts if your
Wisdom Task Force counts.  And do none of the current proposals for IANA
transition (eg.
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana
/>
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/03/a-roadmap-for-globalizing-iana/
) count for anything?

If you're after a more generalised set of criteria of good multi-stakeholder
processes (back at the Bali IGF what I started calling a "quality seal" of
multi-stakeholderism), rather than proposals that are specific to the IGF,
ICANN, etc. then you can expect news about another effort to produce
something like this in the next week or two, following on from a pre-UNESCO
side-meeting that some of us attended - but there's an announcement coming
soon and I'm not going to steal its thunder.

Anyway, the supposed lack of concrete proposals is not the real point,
right?  The problem that you really have is that you're not satisfied with
what those proposals say, by aiming to transcend statist global governance,
which you don't accept is democratically legitimate.  So let's not muddy the
water with false issues.

I am going to take a break from this discussion for now, because it has been
going around in circles.  Everything that could possibly be said between us
on this topic, has been - many times.  I'm starting to feel like I should
just write a FAQ, and reply to list mails with a link to that.  For now, if
there is anything that you think you don't already have a response to, write
to me off list and I'll point you to it.

--

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

 <https://eff.org> https://eff.org

 <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key:  <https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt>
https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR
fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:

 <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150308/685fb7fd/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