<!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="#333333">
McTim, my response are below<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 08 June 2011 08:08 PM, McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=GB00KtSkRUCOoPN8X7+064a6PnCdcd+vj=sQRxGA-dw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 6/8/11, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Bertrand,
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I for one have answered # 1 and 2 several times, it just seems that you
ignore the truth of my replies.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I dont ignore 'the truth of your replies'. The problem you always
seem to speaking about a personal definition of 'internet
governance' which I dont share and neither does largely the world,
as also the IGC. For you IG is developing standards, protocols and
processes for management of critical internal resources, or the
logical layers of the Internet, and *nothing else*. All your replies
correspond to this personal definition of Internet governance, which
simply does not correspond, for instance, to all the work so many
people here are doing vis a vis the IGF. <br>
<br>
Your 'working models' correspond *only* to this narrow definition of
Internet governance. And I am almost always referring to the
broader, more political IG issues. You never ever acknowledge the
governance needs of these issues which most concern most of us here,
much less come up with working models for them. So, you are as
guilty of the 'deep silences' I spoke about. And your repeated
references to 'I am right now working on the Afrinic list' and 'why
dont all of you come and join us' simply do not speak to the issue I
am raising here. <br>
<br>
Tunis agenda had a good phrase for the distinction we are talking
about '
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }</style><span
style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;">public
policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the
day-to-day
technical and operational matters, that do not impact on
international public policy issues</span>.'<br>
<br>
Maybe we can call the '<span style="background: none repeat scroll
0% 0% transparent;">the day-to-day
technical and operational matters, that do not impact on
international public policy issues' as Internet Administration
(IA)</span> to distinguish them from the wider and more political
IG issues that are the main concern of most of us, and of the IGF
etc. However, before this semantic (or is it just semantic?)
problem is sorted out between us, I cant see how a meaningful
dialogue can be pursued. <br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=GB00KtSkRUCOoPN8X7+064a6PnCdcd+vj=sQRxGA-dw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly gets
spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting
during the panel discussion moderated by you.
Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
"what I am missing in your very critical comment ("/it is very much the
wrong direction/") is the proposed alternative;"
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I see the current IG regimes as examples of participatory democracy.
I am doing it as I type this email, participating remotely in the
AfriNIC Public Policy meeting,
<snip>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I can.
look at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-14/index.php/register/participant-list">http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-14/index.php/register/participant-list</a>
Do you think that Farm Radio International, SchoolNet, Village Telco,
Mission Aviation Fellowship, Freedom Fone, Kenya Telecentre Network,
World Vision Niger, Transparency International, Biovision Foundation,
Grameen Foundation, Centre for Internet and Society, etc on the above
url ARE NOT examples of less powerful voices?
I do not think so. I think it has become a cover or a
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">legitimising device for increased influence on policy making of those
who are already very powerful, with which I mean the big businessin 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 are routinely responded to by 'deep silences'
on the part of MSism upholders.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I've never been silent on this ;-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>