<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">Dear Wolfgang</font></p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">The problem is that you provide
sophisticated theories, which is normally a good thing, but you
never respond to questions in the spirit of good theorists as
well as that of deliberative democracy. This makes me wonder
what to make of your theories, especially when the questions I
ask are not abstract but directly related to your own actions
and words at different times -- which seem to very conveniently
be different for very similar situations, which is never good
for a theorist.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">But I will persist, and ask again.
Hope you answer them this time. Please see below:</font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/01/22 4:39 pm, Wolfgang
Kleinwächter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:284504558.937872.1641208149335@email.ionos.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<div class="default-style"> 1+ to Olivier: <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> <br>
</div>
<div> There is no "ism". It is better to use language like "the
multistakeholder approach". The original concept came from the
WSIS 1 (2003) when two conflicting proposals for a "one
stakeholder approach" (leadership) for the governing of the
Internet were on the table:</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I understand that in your country, Germany, it is the government
which sets and enforces all Internet/ digital policies, as it does
in all other areas (in howsoever a consultative manner, which btw
is the realm of participatory democracy and not MSism which is a
direct post-democratic political capture). have you called out
this problematic "one stakeholder approach" in your country? If
not, why so... Do you believe that Germany should make its
Internet/ digital policies with equal right to corporations as
with the government? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:284504558.937872.1641208149335@email.ionos.de">
<div> Governments (China) vs. Private Sector (US). The wisdom of
the WGIG was to recognize that the Internet does not need a
"leader", but the involvement of <em><strong>all</strong> </em>related
stakeholders (in their respective roles). </div>
</blockquote>
<p>Is Germany's Internet governance 'the respective roles' thing or
"one stakeholder approach"? I will appreciate clear and direct
responses . Because one wants to really know what things
conveniently elastic concepts are meant to mean. So, please, as a
good theorist, when you use concepts, define them, and if possible
also illustrate, including with counter examples. <br>
</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I asked in another email, why, for instance, trade
unions (or women and farmers) are not stakeholders, as in UN
systems and in OECD (trade unions), and we have this
industry-serving foursome formula as the mantra in IG? Who decides
who the relevant stakeholders are? <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:284504558.937872.1641208149335@email.ionos.de">
<div class="default-style"> <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> The working definition, which made its
way "1to1" into the Tunis Agenda, included also the concept of
"sharing". The working definition was presented as an invitation
for further conceptual clarification.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, are you happy to do a meeting on such conceptual
clarification -- I have been asking for it for at least 15 years..
Including above, as you will see, which I am almost sure -- from
long experience -- that you will not engage with. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:284504558.937872.1641208149335@email.ionos.de">
<div class="default-style"> Unfortunately, after 2005 the WGIG
concept was pulled into a senseless power struggle between
"isms": Multilateralism vs. Multistakeholderism. This conflict
was nonsense from the very first day. </div>
</blockquote>
<p>Ah! Nonsense! Right .. the MSists made it nonsense.. Developing
countries and groups like ours supported IGF formation at WSIS
when developed countries, and ISOC and ICANN were firmly opposed
to it. Others including in civil society were happy with a
capacity building role for IGF, which we firmly opposed and sought
a policy dialogue role. <br>
</p>
<p>Including at the UN WG on IGF Improvements, developing countries
and organizations like ours gave detailed proposals to further
genuine multistakeholder participation (with very good safeguards
too) -- which you as a member of the group joined developed
countries, tech community and business to firmly oppose, whereby
those could not be adopted. Find enclosed the 'India proposal' in
this regard, which I helped develop. May I question why you did
you not support this effort to strengthen multistakeholder
systems, and rejected it out of hand, did not even negotiate with
it. We had, through some hard work, got almost all developing
countries behind this proposal. <br>
</p>
<p>Now, I come to how these ideas, terms, etc, become nonsensical,
and your contribution to it.</p>
<p>First: I have often asked you this, and wont stop asking. How
OECD's Committee for Digital Economy Policies -- which is where
globally the most digital policy development work currently takes
place (and wonder of wonders, none talks about -- they recently
adopted a legal instrument on AI governance, and are now forcing
it on the whole world) -- with its intergov decision making with
stakeholder advisory committees, and similar digital policy making
systems of CoE, are considered as multistakeholder? IISOC has
officially called them that, and you yourself participate in them
----- <br>
</p>
<p>But when IBSA or India proposes the EXACT same governance model
-- deliberately a cut-paste from OECD, the whole IG world erupts
in disgust over 'imposition' of multilateral-ism and governmental
control over the Internet, including yourself. In fact when the
same model was proposed by developing countries -- i have that
proposal too -- at the WG for enhanced cooperation too, you
rejected it in my presence as anti-multistakeholderist -- joining
with developing countries, business and ISOC in doing so?</p>
<p>It is all this that made these ideas and concepts nonsensical --
the way they were blatantly used and abused to further the
incumbent power of US and its allies, and their corporations....
You are right there, in bearing the responsibility, for such
nonsensical-isation of these otherwise worthy ideas and concepts
.. Which now you rue .. <br>
</p>
<p>And more recently, bringing back precisely the kind of things you
rejected at the IGF improvement WG through the backdoor of MAG
based IGF 'evolution' and now the digital cooperation thing (led
by that great monopolist Bill Gates, sorry his then wife, and Jack
Ma, who now is almost in hiding from regulatory crackdown), but
shorn of the safeguards we have kept in our IGF WG proposal to
contain abuse by corporatist power ... (happy to discuss the
differences)<br>
</p>
<p>But maybe you have responses, and can show that all what I say
simply did not happen... eager to hear that..</p>
<p>With best personal wises, and a very happy new year, parminder <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:284504558.937872.1641208149335@email.ionos.de">
<div class="default-style">The Multilateral (Intergovernmental)
treaty system will not disappear or can not be substituted by
multistakeholder arrangements, but it is embedded in a
"multistakeholder environment". If governments ignore, what
civil society, business or the technical community has to say,
it won´t work. On the other hand: Non-State actors can not
substitute governments. But there are possibilities for
additional multistakeholder arrangements which are based on
voluntary commitments (RFCs are a good example). The
multistakeholder approach is a process, a "round table"
discussion where wisdom emerges from an open and inclusive
debate bottom up. It is an exersize of free and frank discussion
where listening is sometimes more important than shouting. This
goes far beyond "formal consultations" (as parliamentary
hearings). <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> This is indeed a new (political)
culture which needs further conceptual and procedural
clarifications. The NetMundial Statement (2014) delivered some
criteria which allow a certain "measurement" for the quality of
a multistakeholder process. There is no "one size fits all"
multistakeholder model. How the relationship among the
stakeholders in policy development and decision making is
proceduraly organized, depends to a high degree from the nature
of the subject. Cybersecurity needs a different governance model
than digital trade or the protection of individual human rights
as freedom of expression or privacy in the digital age.The IGF+
process (including the drafting of the proposed Global Digital
Compact) offers an opportunity, to take the next conceptual
steps. Openess, transparency, bottom up, inclusion, human rights
based are good guidelines, but needs further clarification. And
it needs procedures, how to move from A to B. Ther procedure
which was developed within ICANN how the ICANN Board should deal
with GAC advice is a good source of inspiration, how
stakeholders can enhance their communication, coordination and
collaboration within a multistakeholder process to produce
tangible results. It is "stumbing forward" into unchartered
territory. <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> The WGIG definition differentiated
also between the <strong><em>development</em> </strong>and the
<em><strong>use</strong> </em>of the Internet, that is the
Governance <em><strong>of</strong> </em>the Internet and
Governance <em><strong>on</strong></em> the Internet.
Governance of the Internet is described today as "Technical
Internet Governance" (TIC), that is the management of a "neutral
technical ressource" in the public interest of the global
community. Such ressources are like "air". There is no American
or Chinese air, there is clean air or polluted air. This risk in
today´s geo-strategic armtwisting is, that those ressources are
pulled into political conflicts with the risk to "pollute the
air" (see the Russian proposal in the ITU-CWG-Internet). </div>
<div class="default-style"> <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> Wolfgang <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> <br>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org"><at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org></a> hat am 03.01.2022 03:16
geschrieben: </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
I have real issues taking seriously people who refer to
"multistakeholderism" as an "...ism" like communism, fascism,
totalitarianism, capitalism, Buddhism, Catholicism.... There
really is not such a thing a "multistakeholderism" but perhaps
multistakeholder systems of governance. Lehto's criticism
assumes that there is a single type of multistakeholder model
out there and there really is not. Multistakeholder basically
means that a variety of multiple stakeholder sit at the decision
and discussion table, so how can one criticise it as if it was
some form of established "system" by the elites, the cabal, the
illuminati? Whatever? Or should we get back to absolute
monarchy? :-) <br>
<br>
Olivier <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> On 03/01/2022 01:35, Barry Shein
via At-Large wrote: <br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre">The following, in a Criticism section, was removed from the
wikipedia's page on "Multistakeholder governance":
Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto,
J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in
multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become
legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a
democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence
that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder
situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who
would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil
society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all
public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce
them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are
usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system
set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of
justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy
and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy
by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing
list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
At-Large Official Site: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a>
_______________________________________________ By submitting
your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of
Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the
Mailman link above to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
vacation), and so on. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>