[governance] FW: [Steeringcommittee] FW: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Tue Mar 10 12:20:28 EDT 2015
Please see Richard Hill's informed response to Milton's amazingly shallow
characterization of the state of global governance structures.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Steeringcommittee
[mailto:steeringcommittee-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Hill
Sent: March 10, 2015 12:48 AM
To: steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [Steeringcommittee] FW: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at
UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
Please see my embedded comments below and feel free to forward, quote, or
reuse, with or without attribution, as you see fit.
multi-stakeholderism? It is long overdue.
Best,
Richard
> ________________________________________
> 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.
Indeed it needs to be clarified, but this does not make it undesirable.
>
> 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.
Yes, and on an international order (agreements between states) that further
limits the power and scope of states in order to protect individual rights
and to maintain checks and balances.
People tend to forget that the main reason behind the treaty of Westphalia
of 1648, and one of its great accomplishments, was that states (kings)
agreed that they would not intervene in the internal affairs of other
states. That was a significant limit on royal power.
People also tend to forget that treaties must (at least in democratic
countries) be ratified by national parliaments. So they are even more
legitimate than national laws because they represent the democratically
expressed will of people in many countries.
>
> 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.
That is not correct. There are numerous treaties that divide and limit the
powers that can be exercises by states, whether nationally or globally. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties constitute
significant components of what can be considered a global constitution.
The legislative branch at the global level is the treaty-making process.
The judicial branch is mostly national courts (who, in many countries, must
apply international law as well as national law), but, for some specific
matters, there are international courts. The executive branch is the
national governments.
Looked at from this point of view, the world is a federal state, with the
national states being the members of the federation. For sure it is a rather
weak federation, but stronger than Europe Union was at the beginning.
>
There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the
> preferences of a global population.
Incorrect. Treaties are the mechanisms used to aggregate and effectuate the
preferences of the global population.
For sure that is an imperfect mechanism and it should be improved, but it is
an existing mechanism and it is reasonably effective in some areas (for
example, international commercial law).
>
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.
To state that that is a pathology is a value judgment. Others might take the
view that it is pathological to think that there should be no restrictions
whatsoever on immigration.
>
> 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
As Churchill said, it is the least worst system that we know of. Those who
criticize democracy should explain what alternative is better.
In particular, those who think that states do not properly represent the
people should explain what mechanism they propose that would properly
represent the people.
>
> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing
> states over internet governance,
I thought that it was widely agreed that offline law applies equally online.
So I don't think that the assertion of the authority of existing states over
Internet governance is a matter for debate.
What can be, and is being, debated is whether some new laws are needed to
cover some aspects of the Internet. For example, some states don't tax
Internet transactions or, conversely, are considering clarifying their tax
laws so as to eliminate certain forms of tax avoidance based on Internet
transactions.
> 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
And it also refers to the system of international law, mostly enunciated in
treaties, that I have outlined above and is democratic in ways in which
federal states are 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.
No, not easily. But what is the alternative?
>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?
Because (1) it is a difficult problem that requires considerable thought and
(2) the very idea is dismissed out of hand, thus cutting off any intelligent
debate, as can be seen from this very post.
>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?
That depends on the subject matter. For commercial matters, such as
taxation, the answer is pretty clear. For data privacy, I (Richard Hill)
personally believe that it should be the law and the courts of the
individual. One could work out an answer for other matters too, and in some
cases the answer would be that the current setup is not appropriate and
should be changed.
>
> 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.
I'm not sure what B. is. But a denial of democracy as a guiding principle is
either a naïve belief in some superior system that nobody has yet explained,
or a deliberate intent to favor the commercial forces that are perverting
the Internet and democracy, as documented in detail in Robert McChesney's
book Digital Disconnect, see:
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Disconnect-Capitalism-Internet-Democracy/dp/15
95588671
>
> --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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Steeringcommittee mailing list
> Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org
> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/steeringcommittee_justnet
> c
> oalition.org
_______________________________________________
Steeringcommittee mailing list
Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org
http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/steeringcommittee_justnetcoalit
ion.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
More information about the Governance
mailing list