[governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints

Tue Mar 10 05:18:30 EDT 2015

Wolfgang,

Indeed ECOSOC is one critical part of the early reflection behind the creation of the UN -  basically an infant of the second world war, and mostly discussed among allies in the US, and for the most part in San Francisco (the then Silicon Valley of global governance). ECOSOC still has an interesting "investigative" role not to be underestimated, and the UN secretariat-general could rely more on it, rather than on its army of special advisers. So much in agreement with your first paragraph, and its reflection regarding groupings of powers. Are the latter very similar to what we see in public policy decision making related to Internet?

When we discuss democratic principles, applied to IG, why don't we 
- look in MSism deficits as well, and there are plenty of them? Some in the lists are so rapidly trying to kill the simple presence of the word "democratic", à la manière the US forbade the introduction of the word "Internet" in the revised treaty during WCIT12.
- Should we - because of these deficits - disqualify the democratic idea, and replace it by a MSist "thinking" that lacks serious basic principals, shows so much more flaws, and seems to have the greatest difficulty to evolve from within (think of status quo, similar to what you mention regarding the trading powers)? We know that MSism has serious issues in terms of accountability, transparency, fair representation, legitimacy, in the specific field of public policy decision making. I see the road from MSism to a more balanced IG much more difficult to walk than starting from a stance based upon democratic principals. At least in CS perspective and reflection.

Democracy has too much "baggage", was it stated. But MSism has no define principals and lots of vested interests to drive it where some want it to go. We all remember the "equal footing" stupidity. We all know about the "rough consensus" story to govern tech start-ups. And we see less and less resistance from CS, ready to abandon the democratic challenge and principals because now it would have too much baggage. For all the people who died on behalf of democracy, this is a call to take back their life for peanuts.

The champion of war of words is the US. From advertising to politics, they deserve our respect. Academics still call it propaganda sometime. The US has the power to enforce its choice of words. Now we have "Freedom of expression", even though pondered by the NSA effect. We have "multistakeholderism" which is to IG what ketch-up is to McDonald. Let's remember that the ketch-up never invented the big mac, neither multistakeholderism did the Internet.

It is amusing to think of Milton's concluding address back in Istanbul with his grandiose utopian libertarian call for a global digital citizenry. Nowadays, he seems to be afraid by his own dream turned nightmare. Because someone dropped a little democratic spice on it. His dream is suddenly being spoiled.

More seriously, we should not give up our efforts and imagination to use and rely on democratic principals, because the task is daunting, or because some are usurping the word. At least we have a strong compass, one that MSist has not - except its automatism for pointing every eye back to the US for permission. This is the largest failure of MSism. It lacks innovation, imagination, because it has no strong seat (except market shares and surveillance bonus thanks to the ICANN concierge who has monopole over indirecting names to IPs). The tenants of MSism forget that even in the US, part of its foundations are made of democratic principals. If MSism would embrace a democratic approach, then we would have a very different conversation. But as proved in Paris, even that, the US diplomats are not ready to take a chance to accept. By refusing to clearly endorse democratic principles as fundaments in our discussion, we endanger any future evolution by keeping the reflection at a ground-zero of governance, where the powerfuls are able to "handle" the Internet Game.

JC

Post-Scriptum: If I may, I copy/paste Barry Shein under creative common license:

So the issues of multistakeholderism are:

1. How are the units of enfranchisement chosen or recognized?

2. How do they act? Democratically is one choice.

3. How is a body of multistakeholders coordinated and governed?

I think at this point the vagaries lie in #1, how are the units of
enfranchisement defined in a multistakeholder governing structure?

Are they self-defined? Whoever stands and claims to be represent a
stakeholder group must be recognized, as one extreme?

Are they defined by some higher authority such as an organizing
document or body to whom you must apply to be recognized as a
stakeholder for the purposes of enfranchisement?

Given some definitions for #1 one might be able to proceed to the
other definitional points.

Le 10 mars 2015 à 09:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) a écrit :

> Dear all,
> 
> just to add some experience with multilateral economic governance institutions to the debate. UN ECOSOC created in 1946 to coordinate international cooperation in the economic and social field can be considered a democratic body as it represents all regions of the world according to the principle of geographical representation, the largest group being from Africa, but has never been allowed to play its role. In  IMF and World Bank, based in Washington the US still has a blocking minority. The WTO works on the basis of consensus, but in practice hardly any decisions are possible against the major trading powers. The ITU I do not have to explain here. The main decisions in international economic affairs are taken not in the UN bodies set up for that purpose, but in the G7/8 or, since 2009, in the G20, oligarchic self-appointed groups, which have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The role of CS in all these organizations and groupings is very limited, the more so as the real decisions are taken there. 
> 
> Consequently, to ask for similar institutions for IG seems to neglect their record of democratic deficits. This is not to say that they cannot improve their democratic accountability as this can be done for multistakeholderism in its present form.
> 
> Wolfgang Benedek
> 
> Von: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Datum: Montag, 09. März 2015 15:10
> An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>, "nb at bollow.ch" <nb at bollow.ch>
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
> 
> I would like to comment only on the final paragraph of WB's very informed commentary with most of which I agree...
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
> Subject: Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints
>  
> Dear Norbert,
>  
> I appreciate Your initiative as a welcome opportunity to move the discussion forward. I have done some research in the past on multistakeholder partnerships in other contexts. The findings showed that the quality of the MSPs is decisive for their effectiveness and sustainability. As larger the asymmetrical relationship in terms of information, participation, political power and funding as weaker the results. One could also argue as more democratic the  relationship as better, but with some qualifications. One is the issue of spoilers, who do not share the basic consensus on which each cooperation needs to be based and another is the fact that inequalities in resource endowment cannot be democratized away, so donors will normally have more say than beneficiaries.
>  
> [MG] agree
>  
>  
> Accordingly, the issue is about recognition of existing inequalities of power and mitigating them to optimize the cooperation and with it the results to be achieved. This includes demystifying concepts like "partnerships" by addressing existing inequalities and being transparent about the objectives of the different partners.
>  
> [MG] agree
>  
>  
>  
> To apply the concept of democracy in this context means to adjust it to the relationships to be addressed, which are not the same as on the state level among citizens.
>  
> [MG] agree
>  
>  
> We also have for many years a discussion on "democratization" of international economic organizations, which mainly means more participations of CS acting in the public interest. This can improve the quality and the acceptance of decisions. The call for further democratization of IG in my view goes in the same direction, but much will depend on how united CS is in its demands and if partners can be convinced of the value-added of more equal participation for all stakeholders.
>  
> [MG] the current context is, I'm sure you will agree, different in that there currently exist no institutions in the IG space comparable to the IFO's (World Bank, IMF etc.). You might also agree that if globally there was an attempt to create those institutions at this time there would be a comparable discussion to that which we are currently having, recognizing that the Bretton Woods institutions were established at the end of a devastating world war which was only brought to a successful conclusion through the extraordinary actions of democratic states acting concert.  Notably also, at that time roughly 2/3rds of the world's population was still under imperialist control and lacking any form of representative, democratic institutions.
>  
> At its most basic democratic decision making (and governance) is derived from and legitimated by the “will of the people” understood in its broadest and most inclusive meaning.  Multi-stakeholder decision making (and thus presumably governance) is derived from and legitimated by a consensus being found among competing stakeholder interests. In this context we are not discussing how to achieve “further democratization” of existing institutions but rather what is to be the shape and underlying model of governance for institutions yet to be created.  That is why the USG is so concerned that they would draw a red-line around “democracy” as a way of characterizing those institutions since it should be quite clear that they have a strong preference for multistakeholder institutions which as you have pointed to above would necessarily be controlled by the wealthy and the powerful.
>  
> M
>  
>  
>  
> Wolfgang Benedek
>  
>  
>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            t
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Am 09.03.15 10:38 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
>  
> >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
> >>-ia
> >>na/)
> >> > 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150310/8eec96be/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