[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Mon Mar 9 04:08:46 EDT 2015

+1 Jeannette

Wolfgang Benedek

Am 08.03.15 19:04 schrieb "Jeanette Hofmann" unter <jeanette at wzb.eu>:

>
>
>
>> 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)?
>
>Yes, I was, and I am proud of that.
>What I meant to say: Language games played an important role during the
>intergovernmental negotiation of the WSIS documents. Those with access
>to the working groups could marvel about these skillful diplomatic
>maneuvers that could only be deciphered by those who knew the historic
>subtext of certain wordings. Civil society did not engage in those plays
>with words. In endless meetings we discussed specific proposals, among
>them the merits of a new multi-stakeholder forum that would address
>internet governance issues.
>
>Sometimes implicit but often enough very explicit, we fought for making
>the regulation of the Internet a more democratic endevaour. The
>multi-stakeholder concept was our entry ticket into the dialogue with
>governments but it was also our approach towards democratizing the
>global management of the internet.
>
>Multi-stakeholder was never meant to be separate or even the opposite of
>democracy. On the contrary, it has been the attempt to expand the
>democratic idea, which clearly has been optimized and operationalized
>for the nation state and thus has not  much to offer for the global
>sphere. There is so much to do, there is so much to experiment and
>learn, in my view it is misguided to frame the current state of things
>as a binary choice between democracy and multi-stakeholderism. I don't
>see how one concept could thrive without the other in the Internet world.
>
>Right now, it is an open and contested question among civil society
>groups what democracy on the global level means. Unless we agree on a
>set of basic principles, it may be impossible to use this term in
>official documents. Avoiding this term does not imply that any of us
>consider democracy less relevant than those who want to see it included.
>
>Jeanette
>
>Jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
>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:
>>       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