<div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wolfgang, so in those examples of progress on EC you gave, where is the CS? Is the implication that in those formalizations of bilateral relationships between organizations, ICANN carries the voice of CS? Or is something in the works to bring the public party CS (ie, NGOs and their coalitions such as IGC) into those arrangements?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>McTim, I couldn't even believe that you went there when I read your quoting of the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace.</div>
<div>You certainly don't believe that it still decribes anything near the reality of government role and capabilities vis-a-vis the cyberspace *today*, do you?! If you don't, as I'm inclined to believe, then I'm trying to understand what else is being communicated here. (See below my commentary about the whole anti-government slogan.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I read Parminder's "counter-proposal" (just to distinguish... or "alternate proposal") as a possible detailing of the last option under paragraph 2 in the "Second draft statement on enhanced cooperation" which started this thread:</div>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr">
<div>* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.</div></blockquote>
<div>Now some may prefer not to commit to a specific preference or set of preferences (and it seems like that's what the proposed draft is doing, limitting itself to the broad level description or to the listing of all different types/models one can reasonably think of) - while some others may want to indicate a specific preference or set of preferences with the most likelihood to foster a progressive agenda. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would rather support the latter.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That being said, Parminder has written either too much or too little :) By that I mean I'm not sure whether it is necessary to get to the detail of the exact composition/membership etc, in this statement. If that were to be the case, then we would need to work a little more on that first rough counter-draft as he himself has acknowledged. For example one major reservation I would have is to avoid making it a government-led model (first rows for governments, folding seats for the rest.) And this is less dependent on the distribution of stakeholder representatives in the room than the rules governing their interactions and processes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>***</div>
<div>Re. the anti-government/state utopia: </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now whether we like it or not, states are in our midst - they are IG stakeholders and powerful ones. We still heavily depend on laws they make and enforce. And gone are the days when we could think of the cyberspace as an island completely isolated from the world where states rule - which also happens to be the world where actual users and providers (outside the screens and servers that give live to cyberspace) live and own the proprieties involved in their subsistance. Now you can choose to keep on believing in your Declaration which IMHO is based on the equivalent of the "state of nature" of the cyberspace, or you can try and work out a "civil state" that would guarantee as many as possible of the ideals included in the initial Declaration based on a clearly defined and agreed upon regime of rights and responsibilities. (Notes: 1) I do admire John Perry Barlow for that inspiration; 2) as you must have noticed, I'm reasoning along the lines of social contract theories, and the last two occurrences of the term "state" here refer to a condition, not to state as in 'nation-state.')</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is like repeating the exact same flaw that you (McTim, implicitly at least, but also Karl and a few others) were pointing to in the post about getting rid of the ICANN's DNS). Here it goes: governments can do very bad things, therefore let's get rid of governments (from the cyberspace... for the time being, I guess.) Yes, governments can do very very bad things. But they will do them anyway, behind the curtains and for the sake of their particular interests of the moment. There is an African proverb that says (roughly remembered and translated) something like: if you put the witch or the malevolent in custody of a good, then they will be less likely to harm that good... Gee! what a miserable transalation, which does nothing to help the natural tendency that some may have to mock an attempt to resolve global governance issues with an African proverb about witches, does it... but I'm sure with a bit of benevolence, you'll get my drift. The wisdom is that putting the potential source of evil under watch, in broad day light, where it can be called out to account if something goes wrong with their responsibilities might just be a more effective protection/defense. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Just in case the African proverb still does not do the trick, let's get even heavier: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarism, where she critically analyzes the liberal political philosophy that shaped the peace treaties between the two world wars, and reflects on their failure to effectively protect minorities as they intended. She knows something about the cost to *stateless* Jews of pretending that liberty and other fundamental rights can empirically exist and survive without a state. On a lighter note: watching the political news in the US, I'm always a bit perplexed that so many organizations and people reportedly against the government (or for small government) spend so much time and energy running for office or huge amounts of money lobbying the government. Assuming they really have nothing to gain from the government, I'm wonder: isntead of being thrown into the processes of governing, maybe such amounts of money would help more effectly shrink the government if they were invested for empowering grassroots efforts for the development of communities (removing all justification for government to grow with socio-economic welfare programs.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Maybe just a little more than my 2 cents. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mawaki</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:36 PM, McTim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com" target="_blank">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">Continued poverty in India or uneven income distribution in the USA<br>
<div><br>On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br>> McTim<br>><br>> And if, in response to my cited figures about India, you may want to say<br>
> that the real full impact of ICTs may be yet to come to India,<br><br></div>I don't know if I should respond to you anymore, since you seem to<br>want to tell me what i am about to say, even though it's miles off the<br>
mark!<br>
<div><br> you may be<br>> interested in the statistics of the 'front yard' , the US, where the new<br>> innovation based 'ecosystems' you speak of have had the longest play.<br><br><br></div>Continued poverty in India or uneven income distribution in the USA is<br>
not a revelation. It is undeniable however that ICTs have played a<br>large role in developing both economies.<br><br>I find your argument to be a red-herring, if you wish to address the<br>substance of my reply to you (I want less governmental interference in<br>
Internet matters, while you seem to want more), then maybe we can have<br>further constructive discussion.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br>--<br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br>