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

Mon Mar 9 04:32:17 EDT 2015

For clarity, to the extent that my question about links to concrete
proposals from the pro-multistakeholderist perspective maybe wasn't
clear enough (and it maybe in particular wasn't clear enough that those 
general references which Jeremy has given to vast bodies of written
words do nothing at all to answer this question), even if it is true
that there are vast bodies of Internet governance related text which is
mostly written from pro-multistakeholderist(*) perspectives:

The context of this little side debate is that I had posted a link to
my proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org and clarified that

1) this is at the current stage simply my proposal - I wasn't posting it
as a JNC position, and

2) JNC has an intention of publishing a relevant position paper, of
which I will notify this mailing list when it has been published, and

3) the proposal to which I posted the link is a proposal for addressing
the challenges of developing *global* public policy, without overlooking
the fact that it is not always possible to reach consensus.

Jeremy replied, IMO somewhat disingenuously, with the following exact
words: "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!"

Of course JNC has since it was created made a large number of concrete
proposals on a significant number of topics.

So the context in which I asked for links to "your concrete proposals"
was a context of proposals for addressing the challenge of developing
*global* public policy without overlooking the fact that it is not
always possible to reach consensus.

I would like to hereby reiterate this request, but now with what I
hope is abundant clarity: I am asking for concrete links to proposals
for generally addressing the challenge of developing *global* public
policy in relation to the Internet, without overlooking the fact that
it is not always possible to reach consensus.

(In case it is not clear what I mean with "public policy": I mean
policies for topics where the disagreements are about how conflicts
of interest and conflicting concerns of different stakeholders
should be resolved. This category of public policy matters is in
contrast to purely technical matters where the disagreements are about
questions of technical nature, i.e. "what is technically a better
solution?")

I am interested in such proposals regardless of whether I'm going to
agree with them. If a proposal is made and disagreement is expressed,
the discourse has been moved forward a bit.

By contrast, I tend to think that any attempt to continue the discussion
without concretely discussing concrete proposals in relation to this
important question would probably indeed result in going around in
circles.

By the way, Parminder has in a recent posting referred to essentially
the same question as it being a "lean and mean question". I find that
characterization quite fitting. I would say that it is a "lean"
question because it cannot be addressed by means of pointing to a vast
body of writings on a large number of somewhat related topics. And I
would say that it is a "mean" question because I don't see it as easy
to answer it in a satisfactory way.

Greetings,
Norbert

(*) P.S. in relation to the term "pro-multistakeholderist": I'll make
another posting shortly in which I'll explain how I see the distinction
between pro-multistakeholderist and pro-democracy viewpoints, and in
which I will solicit comments on that description of this distinction.

On Sun, 8 Mar
2015 09:26:32 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800
> > Jeremy Malcolm <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 .)
> 
> If you're unaware of these, you have a lot of reading to catch up
> on.  Start at GigaNet (http://giga-net.org/).  For a less academic,
> higher-level outline, also look through the submissions to NETmundial
> (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- 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/)
> 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.
> 

-------------- 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