[governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
David Cake
dave at difference.com.au
Sun Mar 22 04:12:41 EDT 2015
> On 9 Mar 2015, at 2:38 am, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For anyone who believes that the on-going effort by the USG and its corporate and other allies to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from "democracy" to multistakeholderism is simply "about words", I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like you to take a look at and put offer on.
The USG are not attempting to shift the normative anchor of international discourse from “democracy” to multistakeholderism. They are attempting to move the normative practical mechanism of international discourse from multi-lateralism to multi-stakeholderism, which is a very different thing. It is true that the USG has self-interested reasons for doing so - but the reasons are not particularly anti-democratic, the primary reason is because multi-lateral fora that work on the ‘1 nation 1 vote’ principle of the UN do not favour those nations that consider themselves strong democracies at this point. It is vital to not simply associate democracy with voting - 1 nation 1 vote is in no way a democratic principle.
This seems to be one of the continuing issues that causes conflict between the JNC and civil society. Every time the JNC sees themselves as fighting to empower democracy by fighting multi-stakeholderism, most of the rest of us see the JNC as effectively fighting against democracy by attacking governance fora where democratic nations are strong (particularly via soft power means), and defending governance fora where un-democratic nations are strong.
There is old ‘road to hell is paved with good intentions’ proverb. I have no doubt JNC has good intentions - but it appears to me they have a great deal of good intentioned bricks labelled ‘democracy’ and use them to pave the road to stronger influence for autocratic anti-democratic nations.
Which isn’t to say that advocating for more democracy is bad in the least, but it needs to also serve to increase democratic outcomes.
(sorry for reviving some old threads. Its been a busy couple of weeks)
David
>
> "Words"/concepts/norms translate into and consciously and unconsciously frame actions; provide the design parameters for operational mechanisms and institutions; and in a variety of other ways turn themselves into reality, often without our even being aware of those processes--that's the point of words.
>
> Democracy representing "red lines" that countries like the US won't cross as per what was observed at the UNESCO meeting, and "multistakeholderism" (i.e. governance by self-selected and primarily corporate driven elites) being the widely pursued alternative is about a conscious strategy of changing the aspirational mechanisms of global governance, and not just in the Internet sphere.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: March 8, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>
>
>
>
>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus
>> on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with
>> about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to
>> democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people
>> playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the
>> middle of that whole thing, no)?
>
> Yes, I was, and I am proud of that.
> What I meant to say: Language games played an important role during the intergovernmental negotiation of the WSIS documents. Those with access to the working groups could marvel about these skillful diplomatic maneuvers that could only be deciphered by those who knew the historic subtext of certain wordings. Civil society did not engage in those plays with words. In endless meetings we discussed specific proposals, among them the merits of a new multi-stakeholder forum that would address internet governance issues.
>
> Sometimes implicit but often enough very explicit, we fought for making the regulation of the Internet a more democratic endevaour. The multi-stakeholder concept was our entry ticket into the dialogue with governments but it was also our approach towards democratizing the global management of the internet.
>
> Multi-stakeholder was never meant to be separate or even the opposite of democracy. On the contrary, it has been the attempt to expand the democratic idea, which clearly has been optimized and operationalized for the nation state and thus has not much to offer for the global sphere. There is so much to do, there is so much to experiment and learn, in my view it is misguided to frame the current state of things as a binary choice between democracy and multi-stakeholderism. I don't see how one concept could thrive without the other in the Internet world.
>
> Right now, it is an open and contested question among civil society groups what democracy on the global level means. Unless we agree on a set of basic principles, it may be impossible to use this term in official documents. Avoiding this term does not imply that any of us consider democracy less relevant than those who want to see it included.
>
> Jeanette
>
> Jeanette
>
>
>
>
>
> Why this gratuitous advice that dont
>> mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word
>> goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here.
>>
>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said
>> at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the
>> term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document,
>> the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been
>> strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it
>> not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar
>> manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest
>> consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on
>> what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very
>> clear what is the main issue here. Anyone?
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>> This discussion is bizarr.
>>>
>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues".
>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding
>>> and role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a
>>> consensus on how to effectively operationalize democracy in the
>>> context of the Internet something with which I (and the JNC)
>>> completely agree and which we have been advocating for a long time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus
>>> on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr.
>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working
>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the
>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental
>>> pillar of US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could
>>> have sufficient comfort to "force" it into international documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for
>>> multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates
>>> acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and
>>> lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM
>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic
>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an
>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view
>>> still needs to be developed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to
>>> include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept
>>> supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in
>>> the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the
>>> UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the
>>> concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware
>>> that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions,
>>> I have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware
>>> that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history,
>>> take the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the
>>> Democratic Republic of Congo
>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good
>>> to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in
>>> the context of the internet among civil society and academia first
>>> before forcing it into international documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter <
>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a
>>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but
>>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to
>>>> promote "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy".
>>>> M
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>
>>>> [<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
>>>
>>>> Klein
>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM
>>>> To:<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing
>>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference"
>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
>>>> (<mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>
>>>> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting
>>>>> the
>>>>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important
>>>>> to put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was
>>>>> to give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on
>>>>> the future priorities in this field. This was done in several
>>>>> plenary and
>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully.
>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into
>>>>> the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all
>>>>> work in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>>> only partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts
>>>>> were elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any significant
>>>>> way in order to deepen their understanding.
>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek
>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek,
>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only
>>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or
>>>> only partly included."
>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar
>>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would
>>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference,
>>>> could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or
>>>> only partially, included.
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Norbert Klein
>>>> Cambodia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150322/33ff68d1/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