Ya empezo el debate.. como lo seguimos..<br><br>Carlos<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/6/8 Roxana Goldstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:goldstein.roxana@gmail.com">goldstein.roxana@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no vamos a cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.<div>
Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil del IGF, con nada de éxito.</div>
<div>Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,</div><div>Roxana Goldstein</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="h5">2011/6/8 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span><br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">Dear Bertrand,<br>
<br>
Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very
keen to get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather
to the contrary of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism
(MS) enthusiast who have run away from probing questions both of
(1) the principled and logical basis of their beliefs and stances
and (2) the precise working models of governance that they
propose. I hope in this present discussion they, and you, can
answer such questions.<br>
<br>
I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it</font>
mostly gets spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the
recent CoE meeting during the panel discussion moderated by you.<br>
<br>
Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is <br>
<br>
"what I am missing in your very critical comment ("<i>it is very
much the wrong direction</i>") is the proposed alternative;" <br>
<div><br>
</div>
<font face="sans-serif">The alternative is the original corrective
to the shortcomings of representational democracy. This is what is
spoken of as deepening democracy or what we may also call as
participatory democracy (though not the anarchic versions of it
which suffer from the precise ill you speak of - a real workable
alternative model). Its institutional forms - existing and those
possible in the future - have been well discussed in literature,
and there is enough stuff about practical working models as well,
including some about the global space. I am ready, in fact eager,
to have a specific discussion on this. <br>
<br>
I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of
working models of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking
democracy forward rather than supplanting it. We, as in my
organisation, worked with the Indian government delegates to come
up with a clear proposal on how MAG for instance should be
constituted, which addresses the negatives of MSism. This part of
the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, which is also largely contained
in the contribution IT for Change made to the process. Is it not
specific enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring role' I am eager to
know what are your own views on it.<br>
<br>
The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of
your email.<br>
<br>
</font>".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences
currently under way presenting more potential for broad
participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use your
formulation) than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN
or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be
so different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance,
that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?" <br>
<font face="sans-serif"><br>
First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in
the UN or the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge
huge improvements changes. This must be obvious from my
contributions to the IGC and other forums. However, my contention
also is that MSism as currently practised in the IG arena may
actually be making things worse.<br>
<br>
Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that
are less powerful and less heard otherwise into the political
processes. Can you honestly say that this is what the MS model in
IG is doing currently? I do not think so. I think it has become a
cover or a legitimising device for increased influence on policy
making of those who are already very powerful, with which I mean
the big business</font><font face="sans-serif"> in the digital/
IT/ Internet space. There are numerous examples of this, and what
is more problematic is how such huge transgressions to political
and democratic propriety </font><font face="sans-serif">are
routinely responded to by 'deep silences' on the part of</font>
MSism upholders. Such silences favouring the interests of the
powerful, as you will also see from the Spanish protests (as also
earlier ones in the Arab world), are the very anti-thesis of new
democratic processes that we would like to see take root. Following
are but a very few examples of what MSism in IG space is really
showing up to be....<br>
<br>
1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates
the discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific
details here but am happy to discuss this further if you so want.
Developing country gov reps have consistently raised this issue in
their private conversations about the IGF and the MAG. Very often
this is the first and the main issue they raise, and I have to agree
with them.<br>
<br>
2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was
supposed to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory
council made exclusively of big business.<br>
<br>
3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed
regulation, together practically wrote the net neutrality
legislation of the the county which is the digital capital of the
world. One would, today, still think it impossible that the top drug
company and the top private hospital chain in the US 'openly'
(lobbying and pushing text secretively is a different thing) come up
with the default health policy draft, even in the US. This is an
instance of the kind of 'firsts' that the IG world is contributing
to our political systems, and the MS discourse certainly has
something to so with it. <br>
<br>
4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a
practical monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who
acquired this business by buying off the incumbent public sector
company through means that have been severely questioned. Again a
first in the name of MSism.<br>
<br>
5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital
content companies, interested in the huge public education 'market'
of India, quite ingeniously managed to become the key and driving
participants of an 'officially' mandated MS process of writing a
draft for India's 'ICTs in schools' policy. The draft that came out
was of course on the expected lines. It took a huge amount of work
from organisation like ours to get the drafting process scrapped by
the minister involved. But such things have not stopped.... So it is
not for the joy of contrarinian-ism that I offer critiques to MSism,
this has had central implications to my organisation's political
struggles.<br>
<br>
6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting
only of big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds
consultations where only these big business reps are invited. (see
for a recent meeting of such kind
<a href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf</a>
). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any
other department in India. <br>
<br>
The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with
MSism, to quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the
weight of some actors, the north-south unbalances and the
representation of the unrepresented' , one needs to know clearly
what is being done about them. Merely mentioning them as a footnote
is of little use to those whom these issues really bother. What I
see is that there seems not even the readiness to debate these
issues, much less do anything about them, which to me confirms my
hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much what goes for MSism
in the IG arena.<br>
<br>
Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are
they ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of
hazy MSism as they recommend for global governance? If not why this
discrimination - democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because
global democracy brings the danger of global redistributions with
it, and MSism on the other hand helps promote Northern businesses
establish even greater global dominance and thus creates transfer
channels in directions opposite to what globally democratic
political systems will tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for
Northern governments' enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena
(but not at places where they themselves make decisions), and what
is really behind the 'friendly governments' discourse frequently
heard on this list. <br>
<br>
Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further. <br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<font face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle
wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Parminder,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for sharing the article.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Two points on your remarks:</div>
<div>- fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of
participatory democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new
tools can be invented;</div>
<div>- I know your reticences - often voiced on the list -
regarding the current modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and
some of them do deserve attention (such as the risks of capture,
the weight of some actors, the north-south unbalances and the
representation of the unrepresented); however, what I am missing
in your very critical comment ("<i>it is very much the wrong
direction</i>") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as they
are, aren't the experiences currently under way presenting more
potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper
democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only
intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so
different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance,
that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bertrand</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br></div></div>____________________________________________________________<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, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other 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>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other 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>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>