<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Parminder<br>
<br>
Thanks for this input and analysis.<br>
<br>
For me what is important is that you and others continue to push for
genuinely democratic participation that ensures a concept of
fairness (that is fidelity to weaker members of society). It will
not do to have formal liberal/progressive assumptions of equality.
When looked at in this light, and from the tenor of most discussions
on this topic, one can see that the "threat" to fairness is really
from those who espouse (?pseudo-) liberal values.<br>
<br>
The balance of forces are tipped against fairness in large order (it
is almost as if one has to explain the point that in "market"
oriented system those with money exercise disproportionate power -
as you pointed out on multi-stakeholderism). If one recalls the
dynamic coalitions on Intellectual Property and the kinds of
discussions that were had by the luminaries given pride of place, we
can see that the predictive value (or rather relevance) of these
sessions were rather pedestrian or poor - and now we see very real
threats to the internet coming from the North (for export to the
South). As far as guardians of a liberal and humane order, I
personally conclude that Weapons of Mass Distraction are typically
deployed so that an innocuous safety valve is allowed, while "real"
issues get sidelined. Contextualised in a non-binding format of the
IGF, this reflects a reactionary predilection of enormous
proportions.<br>
<br>
But there is a good core of people here that question the dominant
debates (and most importantly the <i>framing</i> of debates) that
ensures that these (?pseudo-) liberals do not hold the monopoly on
the debates. In this way it is at best a rear guard action to
prevent a complete rout of the fairness brigade. It is a pity that
more people do not see the relevance of the South positions you
advocated, which in large order has been vindicated. While I have
problems with Zizek, he puts the predicament of our times for
progressive people-centred (not to be confused with
consumer-centred) as: <u>catastrophic but not serious.</u><br>
<br>
Americans can now be strip and body cavity searched for any
infraction, while ACTA continues in the fine tradition of 'the best
democracy can buy' while the likes of you, Guerstein, Mueller, etc
have to insist on arguments based on sound reasoning that does not
gain traction. Perhaps this is just politics, but those who push
this play toward the norms of power, not those of the public
interest. There is a kind of post-modernist bliss in the framing of
the (?pseudo-) liberal arguments - where everyone (or almost
everyone) has a right to be heard, and that solves everything. This
is interest based politics, and largely an abandonment of reason, no
matter what the sophists might think, and reasoning is the ticket
for the civil in civil society i.e. you are playing in uncivil
society. And if one is merely engaged in this kind of stuff, then
reason is a hostage to powerful interests. Implicit in all of this
is the contention that there is US (or rich country) exceptionalism,
which to some extent is true, but increasingly less so. <br>
<br>
Collective processes have their merits, but perhaps it is time for
some of those with concerns that are shared North and South to
develop a framework (for collective action) to deepen (instead of
broaden) their issue-engagement in these processes to avoid least
common denominator outcomes. Gurstein for eg on CSO participation
has made some interesting proposals that perhaps can be the basis
for parallel processes so that the (?pseudo-) liberals can be saved
from themselves. The system needs contradiction and antagonism, that
is simply the evolutionary (not to be confused with Social
Darwinism) process of capitalism, which of itself is a revolutionary
force...<br>
<br>
The IPR debates and issues are merely a reflection of what happened
to African and other countries on the health debates for access to
medicines. There we were talking about a death sentence for brown
people, and the internet issues are somewhat less violent, which
makes for a more difficult case to make. Of course Americans after
strengthening these forces (diplomats, bureaucrats, officials) in
their countries left them open to abuse in their health care debates
(a most inefficient outcome - USers spend more than any advanced
country with poorer health outcomes). But somehow the connection is
not made, that if you strengthen forces that can intimidate and
shame the likes of Mandela that these forces will come and bite you.
A similar process is underway on the net - with the self-righteous,
well oiled and well heeled guardians (aka apologists) in tow. <br>
<br>
For your and others rather lonely battle, as I am just a useless
lurker, perhaps take solace in the Mead'ian quote: <b>Never doubt
that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.</b> This is
a fine American tradition of peaceful (and unlike me you have grace
and charm) change that I hope you continue to claim and deny the
monopoly of action to the pesudo-liberals.<br>
<br>
Of course, I am being deliberately provocative and not very
practical,<br>
<br>
Keep up the excellent work my friend... <br>
<br>
Peace<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
On 2012/04/04 02:46 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F7C3487.2090304@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">John,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your engagement. However, as you suspected, your
assertions
are indeed controversial/ problematic.<br>
<br>
Your advice is not to go into formal aspects of a governance/
policy
mechanism but only focus on the output side. I would come to the
output
side but lets first deal with the importance of formal aspects.
To
those who protested against Mubarak's regime, would you have
advised
that instead of fighting for democracy against authoritarianism,
they
should look at and argue by the work and outputs of regime, and
not its
formal qualities. It is, for instance, possible to argue that
Mubarak
may have kept a tighter leash on fundamentalist groups than the
emerging democracy seems to be able to keep......<br>
<br>
Closer home, since apparently you believe in
multistakeholderism, would
you agree to a governance system that is not open,
participative,
transparent etc although it seem not to have any particularly
disagreeable output? In fact, the IG civil society - including
the IGC
- seems to spend so much time on just the issue of
multistakeholderism
that some of us would want it to get more directly into
substantive
issues.<br>
<br>
So, the question is, why does impatience with formal aspects of
governance/ policy regimes show only when democratic forms,
values and
norms are being spoken of - like conflict of interest, keeping
powerful
private interests out of policy making etc.<br>
<br>
Do you really think that it is a good/ acceptable idea to have
telecoms dominate a policy body on telecom? Would you accept it
in your
own country? Would your compatriots accept it in your country?
On the
same logic, would you accept a health policy body dominated by
pharma
companies - at your country level, and at the WHO? Simple direct
questions going very much to the heart of the issue which I hope
you
will answer. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 05:18 PM, John Curran wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1E649A9D-7EC6-4DD1-B610-4E8CB0197AC1@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:20 AM, parminder wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font
class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif">Many people take IG's
multistakeholderism, as it is practised, to be but a
trojan horse for
mega corporates to enter and dominate policy spaces,
and their
perception may not be entirely misplaced. Civil
society needs to do
more to dispel this impression, but sadly it
doesnt...</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Parminder, Jean-Louis -</div>
<div><br>
</div>
I know this may be controversial, but rather than focusing
the titles
of those leading this</div>
<div>effort, wouldn't it be more practical to comment on the
actual
work, and how it does or </div>
<div>doesn't meet the needs of civil society?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>They have laid out four goals:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:
pre;"> </span>• Target
1: Making broadband policy universal. By 2015, all
countries should
have a national broadband plan or strategy or include
broadband in
their Universal Access / Service Definitions.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:
pre;"> </span>• Target
2: Making broadband affordable. By 2015, entry-level
broadband services
should be made affordable in developing countries
through adequate
regulation and market forces (amounting to less
than 5% of average
monthly income).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:
pre;"> </span>• Target
3: Connecting homes to broadband. By 2015, 40% of
households in
developing countries should have Internet access.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:
pre;"> </span>• Target
4: Getting people online. By 2015, Internet user
penetration should
reach 60% worldwide, 50% in developing countries and
15% in LDCs.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Are these the right goals? If not, why not, and what
should the
goals be instead? Has</div>
<div>CS indicated otherwise the ITU Broadband Commission,
and if so,
what happened?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>They have a "Sharehouse" open to any and all for
submission of
materials to be considered</div>
<div>including "case studies, best practice, analytical
reports and
policy recommendations." - (<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Sharehouse/Search.aspx">http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Sharehouse/Search.aspx</a>>).
They
also have working</div>
<div>groups which appear to include additional
participants from
outside the Commission and</div>
<div>from academia, industry and public institutions. The
IT
Broadband Commission web site</div>
<div>provides most of this information in an very
straightfoward
manner, with outcomes and major</div>
<div>reports available in six major languages. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Having participating in several more 'classic' ITU
initiatives,
I will say that I find this relatively</div>
<div>straightforward in comparison and while perhaps
imperfect in
some aspects, it is much closer</div>
<div>to what many folks have been asking for in
multi-stakeholder
policy development than past </div>
<div>practices by these organizations.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have no involvement in the ITU Broadband Commission
(and am
the probably one of the last </div>
<div>folks on the planet expected to speak in defense of
the ITU's
attempts at multi-stakeholder </div>
<div>engagement), but is there an actual issue here to
respond to?
Has IGC or other CS </div>
<div>organizations attempted to engage with the ITU
Broadband
Commission and been told that</div>
<div>they are not welcome? Has input been provided for
consideration
or to the working groups</div>
<div>been set aside in the preparation of the major
reports and
outcomes? If so, then this matter </div>
<div>should indeed be a major concern and should be raised
loudly at
WSIS and elsewhere. </div>
<div>However, if the issue is the Broadband Commission
failing to
listen due to lack of actual</div>
<div>participation and input, then expressing concern over
its
structure is not only specious, but </div>
<div>it dilutes the voice of civil society when addressing
matters of
actual substance elsewhere.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Disclaimers: My views alone. Concepts in the email
may appear
larger in real life. Your results </div>
<div>may vary. No user-serviceable parts inside. Do
not use this
email as an exit in case of fire. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>