[governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy viewpoints

Tue Mar 10 09:59:58 EDT 2015

Strongly agree with Wolfgang. Reflect what i see in public decision making
process related to internet and it governance.

WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>  I agree strongly too, I think Wolfgang has made a very valuable
> contribution to this discussion. I must admit that I skip a lot of this
> thread  because I feel that the passion we expend arguing with one another
> over these issues might be better spent pushing for improvements in the
> organizations we are discussing.   Glad I popped in to read this one,
> thanks!
>  Stephanie Perrin
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>    *From: *Anriette Esterhuysen
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:15 AM
> *To: *governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Reply To: *governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Pro-multistakeholderist versus pro-democracy
> viewpoints
>
> Agree strongly with this Wolfgang. This does not mean that we don't need
> these institutions and that we should not participate in them and make
> them more democratic and inclusive. But we should not, as you say,
> ignore their democratic deficits.
>
> These deficits exist at national level as well.
>
> Multistakeholder approaches is one way of making existing
> intergovernmental processes more transparent and more inclusive.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 10/03/2015 10:13, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
> wrote:
> > 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 dec
> isions 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<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> > Datum: Montag, 09. M�rz 2015 15:10
> > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>,
> Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>>, "nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>" <
> nb at bollow.ch<mailto: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> [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>)
> > Sent: March 9, 2015 3:44 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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 \u201cwill of the people\u201d 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 \u201cfurther
> democratization\u201d 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 \u201cdemocracy\u201d 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<mailto:
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:
> jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:
> nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:05:55 -0800 Jeremy Malcolm
> >
> >>>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto: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
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20150310/72cb8104/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