[discuss] [ciresearchers] NETmundial documents online for comment

Sat Apr 19 06:36:19 UTC 2014

There are many variations on democracy and democratic principles, etc.

For the purposes of IG, as applied to a loosely bounded definition of DNS and Internet infrastructure more generally, it is the Greek root demo that we are thinking of.  Ie., the notion that everyone should have a voice.

Giving everyone an actual individual voice is a practical impossibility on the Internet, so we use various methods of aggregating individual voices. Some do involve actual memberships and voting, but mostly not.   Stakeholders as a defining term evolved from academic notions of collaboration, and commercial or interest group schemes of constituencies.  The spirit of inclusiveness has resulted in a willingness to tolerate very informal aggregation mechanisms.   For example, in some instances, the views of one person have been given as much weight as the views of  a hundred persons.  In a representative, voting democracy, this would not be tolerated.  

As I understand it, your opposition to use of MS is based on not enough rigor in the definition and insufficient evidence of equal voice.  I grant the looseness of the definition, but I am not sure it matters in an ocean of inclusiveness in which we are searching for quality of thought more than  strictness of one person, one vote.

The history of constituency based MS in ICANN policy making has been one in which many views on a given topic are expressed, and they are subsequently narrowed in an iterative process to a condensed conclusion which attracts consensus support and is ratified by the Board.  Failures of process can and do occur, but more generally it has succeeded.

There is certainly room for a clash of views on idealism vs pragmatism on this subject, but I’m not sure that MS per se has any particularly fatal characteristics to it.

- Mike

On Apr 18, 2014, at 8:12 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
>  
> To go back to a parallel discussion… a strong case has been made for multistakeholder processes in the governance of the technical aspects of the Internet. However, much of the NetMundial discussion is concerning the governance of activities which take place on the Internet (such as surveillance for example)… Your reference I think is to the third category, i.e. of governance by the Internet which I think we would all agree is still somewhat in the future.
>  
> The question though, is whether we/NetMundial abandon democracy and democratic governance of activities taking place on (and through) the Internet (an increasingly large and significant portion of human affairs) for what is an ill-defined, ill-formed and ideologically driven chimera known as Multistakeholderism.
>  
> M
>  
> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:mmr1936 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mike Roberts
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 3:45 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: 1net
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [ciresearchers] NETmundial documents online for comment
>  
> It’s fine to exhort us to promote democracy.
>  
> It is just plain hard work to forge working democracy in cyberspace.  So far, there hasn’t been much progress.
>  
> The ease with which identities can be forged, manipulated, and otherwise used to prevent democracy in action is troubling and real.
>  
> While efforts continue in that direction, let’s not hang a millstone around the neck of NETMundial folks for not assuming something that is not there, at least today.
>  
> MS is a primitive and imperfect means of addressing some fundamental needs for fair representation.  But it is what we have.
>  
> - Mike
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Apr 18, 2014, at 5:08 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks for this Adam and for pointing to the opportunity for making comments.
>  
> And I have several comments.  However, given how the comments element for the document is structured I don't see how I can usefully introduce them into that format since I want to comment not on what is in the document; but rather on what isn't in the document.
>  
> In that context I see two notable and even astonishing absences.
>  
> 1.       The document as presented refers to stakeholders/multistakeholderism in its discussions of the global Internet governance model in one form or another 46 times! While on the other hand, the document contains no, and let me repeat, NO references to democracy or democratic governance! 
>  
> Clearly there is an intent to replace democratic governance with multistakeholder governance. But this issue is not addressed in a forthright manner anywhere in the document.
>  
>  
> 2.       The document nowhere identifies an overall objective for the governance it is discussing. That is, for what purpose or to what end are the governance structures/models being directed?
>  
> To put it bluntly is the proposed governance of the Internet being undertaken in support of the “public interest” or in the interests of the individual “stakeholders” among whom of course certain private corporate and national interests/stakes are pre-eminent? Given what is identified in item #1 the answer to this second question would appear to be self-evident.
>  
> Of course, these issues were not addressed by myself or others in the 188 position papers presented to the NetMundial conference.  Thus one could perversely argue that their absence in the Outcome Statement is a reflection of the failure by contributors to argue for their inclusion. 
>  
> However, the perversity of this argument is obvious when one asks the question, is democratic governance in the public interest not something that can be assumed, taken as a given in an area as significant, whose influence is so pervasive, as the Internet. Need one even argue that the governance of the Internet must occur within a democratic framework and directed in support of the public interest.
>  
> Who could possibly have imagined that this conference dealing with global (Internet) governance would, completely replace the 1000 year evolution of democratic governance in support of the public interest and replace this with governance by and for “stakeholders” acting in pursuit of their individual and private interests.
>  
> Given, as I mentioned, that I see no way of introducing these comments into the commentary section on the document it would be appreciated if you would yourself, forward these to the relevant NetMundial authorities for consideration as they are preparing their final drafts of the output statement for the meeting.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> Michael Gurstein  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ciresearchers-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:ciresearchers-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:41 AM
> To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net
> Subject: [ciresearchers] NETmundial documents online for comment
>  
> Please see <http://document.netmundial.br/> Use the Navigate button.  Information below.
>  
> Comments will close April 21th, 12:00 UTC.
>  
> Adam
>  
>  
>  
> WELCOME TO NETMUNDIAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PAGE
>  
> After an open call for content contribution, NETmundial – the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance – received 188 documents from 46 different countries. These documents were sent by representatives of Civil Society, Private Sector, Academy, Governments and Technical Community.
>  
> Based on these broad set of inputs, NETmundial’s Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) prepared a Draft Outcome Document and submitted it for consultation with NETmundial’s High-level Multistakeholder Committee (HLMC) on April 3rd, 2014. After incorporating the inputs from the HLMC, under the guidance of NETmundial’s Chair and Co-Chairs, a final version of the document is released here for public comments. The public consultation will be open for comments on NETmundial’s Executive Committee Output Document from April 14th until April 21th, 12:00 UTC.
>  
> For this public consultation a commenting tool is available online at http://document.netmundial.br/ with the purpose of receiving public comments on specific points of the document. It is not necessary to create an account in order to post your comment to the document. You’ll be able to immediately start reading the document and whenever you have something to say, you’ll just have to provide a full name and contact email address alongside your comment.
>  
> By clicking on any paragraph of the document, you’ll be able to see all the comments other people have already made pertaining to that portion of the text; as referred above, you are also granted the possibility  to register your own observations. Maybe your concern was already addressed in someone else’s comment, so please be sure to take a look at the previous comments before making yours.
>  
> This public consultation closes the loop that started by collecting public content contributions. Such contributions were compiled and merged into the Outcome Document by the NETmundial EMC and HLMC committees in the spirit of trying to represent the overall context of the current Internet Governance debate. It is very important to receive further public input in this final stage, so that the outcome is true to the issues and concerns presented by all stakeholders.
>  
> END
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140418/1307a429/attachment-0001.html>