[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
Sun Mar 8 17:34:26 EDT 2015
Suresh,
One question between you and me : are you that familiar with such animal as you sound expert with caqueting and trolling. I just realize we have a lot more to learn from you. Such a cute little animal indeed, with only one leg, one eye, one key idea : the world is divided in multi-stakeholderism - or should we call it expanded democracy as Jeanette defines it- and Multi-la-lateralism. Any strabismus issue? Does this animal still have a brain, unless it doesn't need it anymore? We'll keep this for the off-line humor chat-room and our MSist freak show.
Thanks for your insight and reflection.
JC
Le 8 mars 2015 à 16:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
> 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
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20150308/97534a9e/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