<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Hmmm... I have mixed feelings about this, even
though it looks like the title is MSism... Multilingualism :)<br>
<br>
While I firmly believe we need to have more discussions in other
languages, particularly Spanish, we need to be able to communicate
with the larger community, and the common second language seems to
be English.<br>
<br>
How can we manage both ideas?<br>
Saludos, ginger<br>
</font><br>
On 6/8/2011 7:20 AM, Carlos Vera wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=uCvwere6b25Ybc=Tm13_C4O6qMA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:goldstein.roxana@gmail.com">goldstein.roxana@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
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 class="h5">2011/6/8 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span><br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>