<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Monday 12 December 2011 07:19 PM, John Curran wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:0848D427-E047-4DA6-8DFC-835A7791D763@istaff.org"
type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap="">Karl, Parminder -
While acknowledging the value and need for countervailing mechanisms,
we also need to have mechanisms operating entirely within the established
organizations at a policy level which amplify less well-funded/backed
voices in the policy process.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
John, <br>
Nothing can I agree to more! If there were one mission of our
organisation it will be to promote such democratic participation.<br>
<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>
<br>
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? And if large corporates sat at the
policy table, will they let it pass? 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. But, as I said in
my reply to Karl, in IG civil society spaces we are still largely stuck
in a situation where questions about larger political/ public policy
issues related to IG get responded to by an analysis and 'solution'
largely from within a CIR management thinking. Wherein, it is very easy
to react to any genuine political effort to address these political
problems by a knee jerk response that non-US governments just want to
take control of CIR management.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0848D427-E047-4DA6-8DFC-835A7791D763@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Whether these mechanisms with the established Internet systems are
sufficient to prevent external policy imposition by state actors
remains on open question; one hopes that we can at least limit the
effect of such incursions to entities within the state's purview.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0848D427-E047-4DA6-8DFC-835A7791D763@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> That may not be ideal, but in theory such actions are no different
than any other disagreement between government/governed regarding
appropriate voice & representation and hence not global Internet
governance matters per se.
FYI,
/John
Disclaimer: My views alone. This view may be obstructed or eliminated
by subsequent development which may reduce the overall value of thoughts
by those enjoying it, and repeated use of this view does not create any
easement in my mind protecting against future redevelopment.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>