[governance] [bestbits] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Nick Ashton-Hart nashton at consensus.pro
Mon Mar 9 15:01:40 EDT 2015


Dear George,

Thank you for taking what I said in the spirit it was intended.

For what it is worth, here are a couple of areas where I think practical multistakeholderism can be used concretely to help "square the circle":

1) In talking to development agencies (both national and international) and also philanthropic organisations from the tech sector it is clear there's a disconnect: these two communities don't routinely work together. It is axiomatic that you can't effectively deliver on sustainable development without all stakeholders working together on shared practical objectives. How can the divide above - which is mirrored at the policy level, where WSIS' development followup via UNGIS etc is very statist - be narrowed?

2) A bit less than half of the world is online, yet these are the easiest to connect - the more that percentage rises the more those who are left are those who are either poor (financially) or living in remote or low population density areas. Given these facts, is there an opportunity for a multi-stakeholder based "Marshall Plan" to bring the stakeholders to the table that are necessary to deal with the obstacles - and marshall the resources - to narrow the gap. 

A big idea for thought: why not have as a goal of WSIS+10 that we reach 100% connectivity across the human family - affordable in the context of each user -  within the next 10 years. 

I can think of more, but in these two I can see an obvious role for multi-stakeholder-based processes - meaning, that such processes would be indispensable to success. 

On 9 Mar 2015, at 19:49, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> 
> I think that it would be more productive to talk about tangible goals that people can recognize as useful in their daily lives, and how to achieve those goals.  If we can agree upon those goals, then we might shift to talking about the best means to achieve them.
> 
> Let me be blunt, Mike.  You are a friend and colleague, and I believe that you will take what I say in a constructive manner.  For the purposes of this discussion, I couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree with any part of the Sao Paulo statement.  I care more about whether you and I agree on goals for progressing the value of the Internet to humanity so that we can then make the transition to talking about how best to achieve them  --  and then, I hope, working to achieve them.  I mean implementation, and I know that you are no stranger to that.
> 
> However, if you really want to work toward philosophical and political convergence and get unanimous agreement on the meaning of words as related to the anatomy of political systems, then you will spend another ten years on this list repeating the last ten years of discussion, and anyone really involved in development results will cease to take this discussion seriously if they have not already done so.  Since these lists permit freedom of expression, it's your call. 
> 
> George 
> 
> 
> On Mar 9, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> (This was drafted before I read George's most recent note and I agree that
>> the discussion, hopefully revealing to some, is now getting somewhat
>> repetitious and addressing the questions George poses might be a worthwhile
>> exercise...
>> 
>> Nick (and George), you may believe this discussion is just about words but
>> clearly the USG and it's allies with their "redline" position against
>> democracy in Internet Governance, think differently. (If it was just "words"
>> why threaten to walk out if "democracy" is included.)  BTW, show of
>> (digital) hands here, how many people think that this discussion is just
>> about "words"?
>> 
>> I'm quite prepared to agree to the statement from the NM if only I could
>> understand it... It seems to me that in the crafting of diplo speak they
>> have squared circles and put horns on horses and created unicorns but I'll
>> suspend final judgement until someone does an explication and makes some
>> elaboration on what this formulation might look like in practice.
>> 
>> Re: your point about a major objective for the original WSIS was ensuring
>> that the Internet was accessible to and usable by and for the benefit of all
>> (which has now been largely forgotten by the MSists).  You may recall my
>> noting that a major failing of the Brazil Net Mundial was its failure to
>> address these issues in any significant way and I attributed this to their
>> failure to in fact be effectively multi-stakeholder i.e. they overlooked (or
>> perhaps systematically excluded) the primary stakeholders in this area, the
>> rural and marginalized populations (and those such as Community Informatics
>> folks) who work with these populations and on their behalf.
>> 
>> Re: WB's rather bizarre characterization of this conversation as "bizarre",
>> perhaps this could be explained by the fact that he is evidently the
>> official spokesperson for the  1% WEF ++"s attempted insertion into Internet
>> Governance on behalf of the MSists through the NMI.
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Sent: March 9, 2015 9:12 AM
>> To: Governance; Wolfgang Kleinwächter
>> Cc: Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at;
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [bestbits]
>> Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>> 
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> 	charset=iso-8859-1
>> 
>> A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that langu=
>> age is excellent.
>> 
>> On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask your=
>> self: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's =
>> lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over t=
>> he form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum?
>> 
>> This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achievin=
>> g the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, a=
>> nd bigger than technology.=20
>> 
>> I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of=
>> arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decad=
>> e of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly =
>> bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word.
>> 
>> As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade=
>> , to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest aw=
>> ay from actually benefiting any real people's lives.=20
>> 
>> I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope =
>> it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost.
>> 
>> On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at m=
>> edienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> =20
>>> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 
>>> wortdsmithin=
>> g discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states:
>>> =20
>>> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: 
>>> Internet =
>> governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensur=
>> ing the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, inclu=
>> ding governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical communit=
>> y, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilit=
>> ies of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with referen=
>> ce to the issue under discussion.=20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 
>>> Paul=
>> o rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation=
>> of 9.1.
>>> =20
>>> Wolfgang
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert 
>>> Bollow
>>> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40
>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang 
>>> (wolfgang.benedek at un=
>> i-graz.at)
>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
>>> Ceremony o=
>> f "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>> =20
>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
>>> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
>>> <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>>> =20
>>>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR 
>>>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in 
>>>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the 
>>>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, 
>>>> periodic elections etc
>>> =20
>>> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in  
>>> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not  
>>> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its  
>>> government democratic is spelled out explicitly.
>>> =20
>>>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be 
>>>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic 
>>>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no 
>>>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human 
>>>> rights body to my knowledge.
>>> =20
>>> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word  
>>> "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say,  
>>> certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights  
>>> instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14,  
>>> Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4.
>>> =20
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> =20
>>>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights,  
>>>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing  
>>>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar  
>>>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and  
>>>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression  
>>>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014.
>>>> =20
>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>>>> =20
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800
>>>>> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of 
>>>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means 
>>>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all 
>>>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that 
>>>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies 
>>>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of 
>>>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a  
>>>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post  
>>>>> about this when it is available.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting  
>>>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the  
>>>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in  
>>>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)  http://JustNetCoalition.org
>>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> =20
>>> 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/
>>> =20
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>> 	filename=signature.asc
>> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
>> 	name=signature.asc
>> Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>> 
>> iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU/cZjAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00dCUL/0ML8ToXqbm7bxV1QrHoAiUe
>> 770RMhqvq5Pw5YQfbIlXEr5YIm3h8jFFHm3g18rMCLXYj+uUKySEUnjHwQcM10Ck
>> JvWjM5F8IfuFRA5W3rn/q4UOTpmSwTEVTc47bXxzIRSRdorvKPpCOFNEUjV4F1FR
>> YMnUhoSDEOz5PO7+bKMce3nBnWheyYRxYSgesKgQsZqaV4zXXqxzndo7cO1EAGuy
>> ZCGMkLAu+h2UKH+6LBaIJwErL3DpfjItm7wQzK8bzuYqM0DWHQCZ4KcVVLbeNbre
>> kTaF74LxOZPppj9kb9NLO360h6SZS80kGueAxMuRMWhT4nBCrC6rj478IXq948Be
>> mfLNDU/prRSnC1IalqiPBN6kOPiyK0mN09ziSgavkKSN+AgvvOG7dyfSuxnnRMyr
>> fJRkGFFeYr6J2lQX3HsBYFOuxmatWE1hmDRlnIAVSlMJvp/FBYMGKmFsKRu8bqd4
>> 3wKZpWDemj1WfxgkWuHNwNSu6JRs4qBXzUKEkYFdjw==
>> =3UVw
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
>> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94--
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150309/97114f04/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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