[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"

Tue Mar 10 12:02:15 EDT 2015

Erik:

Do you really have nothing better to do than play silly word games? A European party that favors restrictions on immigration, in my reference, means a political party _in Europe_, such as UKIP, Syriza, the Front National, etc., etc. 

> -----Original Message-----
> To my knowledge there are no "European parties" standing for elections 
> in any Member State of the EU. Yet.
> 
> There are myriads of permutations (or should I say perturbations) of 
> structures created by "political families" trying to link nations with 
> that sweet slogan "United in Diversity".
> 
> And as I said before, now even the CJEU has joined the discussion with 
> its Opinion 2/13, which transferred would fall in your category C).
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm all for motherhood and apple pie.
> 
> As another Charlie said, let us all unite in the name of democracy:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> //Erik
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance- 
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller 
> [mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday 9 March 2015 20:34
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert 
> Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't 
> solve the problem. It is more fundamental.
> 
> I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder 
> a dozen times, if not more.
> As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very 
> meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely 
> unclear in a globalized environment.
> 
> Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined 
> and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial 
> states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define 
> an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen 
> population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision 
> making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks 
> and balances on the various branches of government.
> 
> None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet.
> There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global 
> constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised 
> by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and 
> effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial 
> division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically 
> governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the 
> increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples.
> 
> Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any 
> of these things:
> 
> A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that 
> "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it.
> Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. 
> This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy
> 
> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing 
> states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in 
> the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized 
> UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations 
> voting are not internally democratic
> 
> C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic 
> institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a 
> globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what 
> form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how 
> they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" 
> regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), 
> what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable?
> 
> I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of 
> these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B.
> 
> --MM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- 
> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; 
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre 
> > wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo 
> > Declaration
> which states:
> >
> > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder:
> > Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder 
> > processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of 
> > all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil 
> > society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
> > The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 
> > interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under
> discussion.
> >
> >
> > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao 
> > Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the 
> > implementation of 9.1.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche 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 uni-graz.at)
> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing 
> > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100
> > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)"
> > <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Wolfgang Benedek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter <nb at bollow.ch>:
> > >
> > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 David Cake 
> > > ><dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 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.
> > > >
> > > >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.
> > > >
> > > >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.
> > > >
> > > >Greetings,
> > > >Norbert
> > > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 

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