[discuss] NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: My thoughts on NETmundial and the Future of Internet Governance

Sun Apr 13 19:34:36 UTC 2014

Fair question Adam and I'm going to try to address it... although your
strictures are tough ones :)

(BTW, when the USG, the "homeland" of democracy makes statements about
global (Internet) governance (at Bali and to NetMundial) that reference
Multistakeholderism 12 times without mentioning democracy once, we are
beyond mockery and directly in Colbert or John Stewart territory including
for the US's "amen corner
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amen%20corner> " among the tech
and civil society communities...

As a preamble I should say that, as I believe it was Neelie Kroes pointed
out, as Internet Governance goes so goes the future of global governance or
perhaps better, governance in the global context.  It is for that reason
that for most purposes I write about global (Internet) governance since I
(and I'm quite sure the good folks in the US State Department) see Internet
Governance as a surrogate and testing ground for what, if they had their
way, would be the dominant mode of global governance for the future.

First let me say that I agree with those who argue that there are problems,
even severe problems, with the current form and operation of "democracy"... 

I think those problems vary in content and severity from country to country
(in the "West" the term "Democratic Deficit" is often used) and from
circumstance to circumstance--I think the problems are worse and becoming
even worser :) daily.  In some of the developed countries notably the US we
are seeing the rise of a one dollar one vote style of politics, and in my
own country Canada we see the current government hell-bound (more or less
literally) to pass legislation that will seriously undermine (in their own
specific interests) the operations of one of the most effective and fair
electoral systems in the world.

But I think it is unreasonable (a euphemism for downright stupid) to project
those problems onto the rest of the world as seems to be the habit of many
of the commentators on this and related lists who can't get beyond their US
based libertarian fantasies to see how parochial are their critiques and
recommendations in the context of the world outside of the US of A (and the
rest of the 5 Ayes).

I think that democracy-its practices and methods-like a lot of institutions
(universities, churches, public administrations etc.) has not adapted very
well (or quickly enough) to the very rapid changes in communications,
information management practices, cultural and social norms that the
tech/Internet revolution have visited on the world.  This doesn't mean that
Democracy is obsolete (the Internet evidently has been having somewhat
similar impacts on the institution of marriage
<http://www.covenanteyes.com/2012/03/20/are-social-networking-sites-destroyi
ng-your-marriage-5-tips-to-protect-your-partnership/>  but not a lot people
are arguing that marriage is obsolete or that we should move into some type
of post-marriage conjugal framework). 

It does mean that significant efforts by fair minded people including, one
would hope, a lot of the people gathered here needs to be put into helping
democratic practices and methods evolve and adapt including figuring out
useful, effective and fair ways of integrating the opportunities presented
by the Internet and digital technologies into democratic practice.

That doesn't mean that you go whoring after the first piece of fluff (MSism)
that passes your periscope. who knows what (ideological or other) diseases
they may be carrying. J

What it does mean is that it is a hard slog to work through these
adaptations and evolution. Whatever is done in those areas needs to be done
with full recognition and participation from the variety of modes of and
requirements for democratic institutions and practices globally i.e. what is
needed (and or acceptable) in the US is not necessarily what is useful and
acceptable in India or South Africa or Brazil or.!

All that is preamble to what I said below in response to Avri i.e. "In
complex, technology intensive, rapidly changing environments it is clear,
that there is a need and an opportunity for broader inclusion in decision
making processes in particular including those with specific technical
expertise (for technical decisions) and those most directly
impacted/involved/holding "stakes" in democratically derived decisions (for
many other instances)."

How to do that is of course, your question and I have no pat answers to
that.  I think that what must be done is to find ways to bring democratic
practice up to speed for the Internet age - something that is as vital and
timely on a national level as on a global level. Some of it in some contexts
will, I think, involve a multistakeholder approach. From what I have seen
the MS approach particularly at the national level and particularly in many
LDC's is an extremely important contribution and enhancement of democracy by
giving previously non-included voices an opportunity to participate in
policy formulation. This to my mind works because there is a deliberate
attempt to provide resources/training and opportunity for useful and
effective broad-based participation (I've discussed this at some length in a
blogpost
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-pro
cesses/> .)

In other instances I think it involves designing structures which link
bottom up and inclusive policy processes (particularly concerning policy
issues where there is a direct local impact) to broader publicly accountable
(democratic) structures through methods that Avri refers to as
"participatory democracy".  Here experiments like Liquid Democracy I think
may have considerable merit given the extremely creative way that they have
linked the capacities of digital and online systems with dynamic policy
processes and in a manner specifically addressing some of the emergent
issues often described as the "Democratic Deficit" (feelings of
ineffectiveness, distance from decision making, lack of access to expert
knowledge etc.etc.).

In other areas, perhaps more directly relevant to our IG discussions
(although I think Liquid Democracy might possibly have relevance here as
well) we are in new territory and I think we should proceed in an
experimental and information seeking mode. Including with a lot of
discussion, research, experimentation among the various actors (and in IG
including a much broader range of actors than is currently being included).
I think the worst thing we could do would be to allow ourselves to get
locked/stampeded into one model (eg. MSism) without having a very clear
sense of the issues we are trying resolve; what the implications are of the
various solutions that are being proposed; and what the options might be for
responding effectively to the problems that have been identified.

So what do we do about Internet Governance tomorrow or at NetMundial or the
day after that.  I think two things:

1.       At NetMundial the output statement must make a clear commitment to
the notion that the Internet is to be governed as a global Commons/in the
public interest! - this would help to ensure that whatever governance
strategies were arrived at were at least in some manner accountable to the
broader global community (and yes I know that also requires definition and
elaboration); as well as going some way to ensuring that global (Internet)
governance outcomes are in the "global public interest" rather than being a
cabalistic concatenation of private or national interests and/or subverting
ideologies.

2.       Another meeting/process should be convened along the lines of
NetMundial (maybe the world's largest democracy India could host/sponsor it)
to discuss global democratic governance in an Internet age.  MSism would
certainly be one of the topics which should also include how to adapt the
extremely creaky post-WWII deliberative and decision making structures of
the UN into the Internet age OR what alternatives there might be to the UN
for global democratic governance structure at a global level.  (Those who
want this governance to look like the World Economic Forum could have their
say, but then so could everyone else .

Hope this helps, and thanks for asking.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 10:37 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; 'Avri Doria'; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: My thoughts on NETmundial
and the Future of Internet Governance

hi michael,

you use many words to say (and often mock) what you do not want.  but do not
say what you want.  if not multistakeholder, then what?  please try to be
clear. 

thank you,

Adam

On Apr 13, 2014, at 6:49 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

> FWIW I see a lot of merit in this formulation but rather than putting the
emphasis on a still undefined and shape shifting "multistakeholder model" I
would put the emphasis on ways of adapting and evolving democratic practice
(including towards the self-organization of democratic processes--a
fascinating idea and one worth exploring in-depth I think). 

> 

> In complex, technology intensive, rapidly changing environments it is
clear, that there is a need and an opportunity for broader inclusion in
decision making processes in particular including those with specific
technical expertise (for technical decisions) and those most directly
impacted/involved/holding "stakes" in democratically derived decisions (for
many other instances).

> 

> M

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Shatan, Gregory S. [ <mailto:GShatan at ReedSmith.com>
mailto:GShatan at ReedSmith.com] 

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 1:56 PM

> To: 'michael gurstein'; 'Avri Doria';  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
discuss at 1net.org

> Subject: RE: [discuss] NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: My thoughts on
NETmundial and the Future of Internet Governance

> 

> I might be presumptuous to offer, but these minor edits should help:

> 

> I disagree with her arguments about Democracy and the Multi-Stakeholder
model, in that I see [the Multi-Stakeholder model] as a form of
participatory democracy that includes (a) the representative democratic
ideal of the individual countries, and (b) the varieties of democratic self
organization among the stakeholders, to create a richer trans-national form
of democracy.

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From:  <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> discuss-bounces at 1net.org [
<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of michael gurstein

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 4:43 PM

> To: 'Avri Doria';  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

> Subject: Re: [discuss] NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: My thoughts on
NETmundial and the Future of Internet Governance

> 

> Avri,

> 

> I've read this 3 times and I still have no idea what you are saying.

> 

> M

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From:  <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> discuss-bounces at 1net.org [
<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Avri Doria

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 10:05 AM

> To:  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

> Subject: Re: [discuss] NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: My thoughts on
NETmundial and the Future of Internet Governance

> 

> Hi

> 

> [MG>] snip

> 

> Whereas I disagree with her arguments about Democracy and the
Multi-Stakeholder model in that I see it as a form of participatory
democracy that includes the representative democratic ideal of the
individual countries and the varieties of democratic self organization among
the stakeholders to create a richer trans-national form of democracy.

> 

> avri

> 

> _______________________________________________

> discuss mailing list

>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

>  <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> discuss mailing list

>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

>  <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

> 

> 

> 

>                                                                * * *

> 

> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on
notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for
any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for
your cooperation.

> 

>                                                                * * *

> 

> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local
provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
tax-related matters addressed herein.

>
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> discuss mailing list

>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

>  <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140413/09d51fcc/attachment-0001.html>