[governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints

Mon Mar 9 07:55:43 EDT 2015

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:50:11 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> That definition below would imply that multistakeholderist opinions
> or processes are not democratic.

No, I don't believe that to be necessarily the case. It also wasn't me,
or anyone from JNC, who insisted in Paris that "democratic" and
"multistakeholder" cannot be put into the same sentence.

I sincerely believe that a consensus is possible between those who hold
pro-multistakeholderist views and those who hold pro-democracy views.
Such a consensus would be based on establishing the processes of
Internet governance in a way that is at the same time democratic and
multistakeholder (which happens to be what the NETmundial outcome
document calls for). There is nothing in the definitions below that
would prevent anyone (whose views are part of either of these
categories) from agreeing to processes which are at the same time
democratic and multistakeholder.

In other words, I believe that although the failed consensus process in
Paris allows to achieve a good characterization of the split which
exists in civil society, this split will not necessarily prevent the
possibility of reaching consensus in the future.

The main question which I'm asking is about the accuracy and fairness
of my characterization of those who view themselves as being
"pro-multistakeholder" (which is a term that is contained in a recent
posting of Jeremy, I didn't invent it) with the words: "Elevating a
principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status, and it fact
giving it a status which is as high or higher than the status which is
ascribed to the principle that Internet governance must be democratic.
This is often done by insisting on the importance of multistakeholder
governance without mentioning democracy at all."

Another related question is whether it is appropriate to describe the
existing major split among Internet governance related civil society
groups as a two-way pro-X vs pro-Y split. If someone believes that the
picture isn't sufficiently complete without introducing one or more
further categories of viewpoints, I would suggest that now would be a
good time to speak up and describe any further proposed categories of
viewpoints. 

Greetings,
Norbert

> > On 09-Mar-2015, at 15:08, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > Recent events seem to indicate, in my eyes at least, that a
> > significant divide which is in existence within civil society in
> > relation to Internet governance can be characterized appropriately
> > as follows:
> > 
> > a) Pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints, which are characterized by
> > elevating a principle of multistakeholderism to a very high status,
> > and it fact giving it a status which is as high or higher than the
> > status which is ascribed to the principle that Internet governance
> > must be democratic. This is often done by insisting on the
> > importance of multistakeholder governance without mentioning
> > democracy at all.
> > 
> > b) Pro-democracy viewpoints, which are characterized by insisting
> > that Internet governance must be democratic. Pro-democracy
> > viewpoints may involve endorsement of multistakeholder processes
> > for Internet governance (even if not all who hold pro-democracy
> > viewpoints would necessarily agree in any way with
> > multistakeholderism), but the principle that governance must be
> > democratic would always be seen as having greater importance and a
> > higher priority than any endorsement of multistakeholderism.
> > 
> > From the above it would be clear that any consensus between those
> > who hold a pro-multistakeholderist viewpoint and those who hold a
> > pro-democracy viewpoint would involve agreeing on a path forward for
> > Internet governance that is multistakeholderist as well as
> > democratic.
> > 
> > Alas what happened at the UNESCO conference in Paris was that some
> > of those who have pro-multistakeholderist viewpoints (specifically,
> > Jeremy and the US government as well as diplomats of a few other
> > countries who had instructions from their governments to support
> > positions of the US government in relation to multistakeholderism
> > upon any such request from the US delegation) were unwilling to
> > agree to any kind of consensus text along those lines.
> > 
> > As a result, the conference ended without reaching consensus.
> > 
> > I welcome comments, especially in relation to the characterization
> > of "pro-multistakeholderist" versus "pro-democracy" viewpoints. I
> > have written this with every intention of accurately summarizing the
> > viewpoints of both sides.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:32:17 +0100
> > Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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