<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 13.12.11 08:11, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4EE6EC7A.7030408@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0848D427-E047-4DA6-8DFC-835A7791D763@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> For example, from a policy perspective, the way that the ASO handles
global policies requires alignment of communities in all five regional
registries to establish new global policy. This is an intentionally
high bar; one that requires solid consensus in order to proceed.
Parties have multiple fora in which to make their case for/against
a policy, and actual listening and accommodation of needs of less
popular views is inevitably required if one hopes to make new global
address policy.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I greatly appreciate the ideal of high level of consensus that is
upheld in a lot of technical policy making processes, and it
may/does
work to prevent highjacking of policy making processes by a few,
more
powerful. However, larger political issues, beyond the technical,
may
not be best served by similar processes. By definition,
'technical' is
that in which case there is always a best (or close to best)
solution
that is beneficial more or less to all, except maybe a minuscule
minority. However, the 'political', the subject of public polices,
involves much clearer trade-offs and division-of-benefits/losses.
Consensus based governance processes, like multistakeholderism (as
a
system of governance), in such cases, simply perpetuate the status
quo,
which is often very unjust. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The 'technical' consensus is based on common sense and in virtually
all cases wins, compared to the political consensus. The political
consensus is based on promises, that politicians ah too easy make
and that are never fulfilled in reality. But even if fulfilled, they
could only serve and satisfy a minority. There is no evidence of the
contrary.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4EE6EC7A.7030408@itforchange.net" type="cite">
The most powerful interests are able to veto any progressive
change.
For instance, if we were looking at whether the richest should be
taxed
more, a hot political issue in the US, what are the chances that
such a
move can be carried by consensus?</blockquote>
<br>
This is simple. If you go for a consensus, then you need to define
whose consensus. If you go the "democratic" way, and require the
consensus of everyone, as in voting, then the rich people generally
"lose" because those who do not consider themselves rich and will
believe they will not be taxed are more. If you have a ratio of say
1:100 to rich:other people, this is also politically 'reasonable',
because for every rich person vote, you gain 100 'other' votes. Of
course, the rich perople typically pay the politicians to do what
suits them, including for the election campaigns so for the
politicians it is really a matter of calculating where the greater
benefit will be. Not the public interest! Not any forward looking
planning and even vision.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4EE6EC7A.7030408@itforchange.net" type="cite">
And if large corporates sat at the
policy table, will they let it pass? </blockquote>
<br>
Surprisingly, they may. Large corporations have been distorted to
the point, to care more about things like market share, shareholder
profits etc. They do not care much about (domestic) politics etc. So
corporations may surprisingly support more taxes for the rich, if
this brings them more profit (like, the masses having more money to
spend on their products).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4EE6EC7A.7030408@itforchange.net" type="cite">I
am just trying to make a point
that what works in CIR management does not necessarily work for
larger
political and public policy issues involved in global Internet
governance. The latter require a different response.</blockquote>
<br>
The key difference here is that Internet is global.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4EE6EC7A.7030408@itforchange.net" type="cite">
The precise point of my original 'sopa or no sopa' posting was to
show
how this is not the case, and US state actors are able to impose
their
will over the whole world. This is a 'real situation' that
requires a
'real response'. In the circumstances, the least that global civil
society can do is to sympathise with developing countries when
they
speak up against such unfairness and injustice, and call for
urgent
corrective actions. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
We have to understand two things here:<br>
<br>
1. The US has always been 'in charge' of the Internet.<br>
<br>
2. This will continue to be so, while everybody prefers to utilize
the services of US based Internet corporations instead of the
services of 'local' parties. Funny enough, most such cases are
"because we do not want those local guys becoming important, so we
will instead collaborate with someone abroad, why not that US
corporation that offers us so many promises".<br>
<br>
Internet let's everyone be their own masters. It also lets any
individual or a group of individuals have whatever they want
relationship with the rest of the world or any particular party. It
gives people ultimate freedom in communication. Most don't
understand this yet, but more and more already do.<br>
<br>
This is all freaking the Government types. And we see all sort of
SOPA things.<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
</body>
</html>