<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:EA54753B-7FDD-4852-A727-2C3B73B570E0@psg.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 29 May 2010, at 13:40, Everton Lucero wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am certain Mr. Beckstrom would have never said that
nonsensical phrase.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You have more confidence in him than many.
a.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Though I am quite sure, whatever Mr Beckstrom feels in his heart, he
could not have afforded to take names directly, the real point here is
different. <br>
<br>
This tendency extends much beyond ICANNists, the press in the North etc
to also many in the civil society. It is of caricaturing in simplistic
terms what the agenda of developing countries - including the more
democratic among them - is at the global IG level. It is taken to be
simple ' CONTROL (in deliberate caps) the Internet in order to control
FoE'.<br>
<br>
And this single perspective completely blocks out all the other genuine
concerns developing countries have vis a vis the governance of the
Internet at the global level, when they can see how Internet keeps on
increasingly to be shaped by the corporates and governments of the
North to serve their partisan interests. <br>
<br>
It is the same attitude taken to 'enhanced cooperation'. Dont even
mention that term - it is the code word for developing country
governments being able to stifle FoE on the Internet (as if any country
who really had wanted to do it needs much anything more than such
controls as are already available domestically).<br>
<br>
The same people who are often most vocal in asserting that (1) the
Internet is increasingly a part of almost all parts of our social life,
and of almost every social structure , and (2) the Internet is
inherently global, are strangely mute when it comes to the obvious
implications of these assertions - that the governance of the Internet
is an extremely important issue, and that it has to be done by all
people, groups and nations in a democratic manner and not left to a few
corporates and the more powerful governments. And the straightforward
implication of that which is - we first of need to have a democratic
global forum for shaping global Internet policies. <br>
<br>
EC for me is the only available direction towards that. Nothing in
politics, or anywhere else, will ever be perfect, but I cant see how
can we (as in, civil society in IG arena) be giving up our
responsibility to pursue this available direction based on some
pre-conceived notions of 'we know what developing country governments
are up to'.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:EA54753B-7FDD-4852-A727-2C3B73B570E0@psg.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>