<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><div><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div>
Dear Sivasubramanian,</div><div><br></div><div>Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the former) that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most recent case of Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can happen to something called democracy and formally designed as such, you bet that can happen to a multistakeholder governance structure. After all, what does "multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you think it will necessarily and always function as a better democracy? Is there anything in the word that suggests so? No. Can stakeholders turn out to form a smoke screen diverting from the interests of the larger public or the people? You bet they can.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mawaki</div><div><br></div><div>p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe... </div></span></span></span></div></span></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Dear Mawaki</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div dir="ltr">
<span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><div><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">
Hello,</div></span></span></span></div></div></span></span></span></div></span></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Hello</div><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">
<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div></div><div style="font-size:small">
<span style="font-size:13px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#000000">"to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model <div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">
</div>contradict the ideals of democracy"? <div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">
</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"></div>Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of democracy???</font></span></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT contradict..."</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does not". The rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was making is that the premise underlying the condition was not valid. So I asked "<span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of democracy???"</span></div>
</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">
<span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Thank you</span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Sivasubramanian M</span></div>
</font></span><div class="">
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></span><br></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#000000">"consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process, open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could lead to politicization of the process. </font></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special interests or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in parentheses in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy' precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Mawaki</div><div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#000000">In India the intention to protect minority interests began with policies of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for minorities in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social justice has also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the Government's openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby group wins over the muted voice or silence of others. Certainly a global process can not create a situation where minorities would be neglected, but this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"</font></div>
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#000000"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#000000">Sivasubramanian M</font></div><div>
<font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#000000"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#000000"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div><br><br clear="all"><div class=""><div><br></div>-- <br>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>India <a href="tel:%2B91%2099524%2003099" value="+919952403099" target="_blank">+91 99524 03099</a>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>