<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Parminder,<br>
<br>
You're pushing on levels-of-analysis and levels of governance issues, that I agree are important to keep clear but are only tangentially tied to an ITU Broadband Commission's efforts. So now you've pushed me to defend the ITU Broadband Commission : (<br>
<br>
Commissions, like multistakeholder processes generally, bring different groups together and hope something good comes out of the dialogue. Sometimes they work, other times not so much. From one view, if say 10 more national governments (to pick a low target)
develop their own national broadband plans in next few years, partially influenced/nudged by the ITU Broadband Commission, then that's a good thing from Michael's ICT4D perspective or from (presumably) the perspectives of the citizens in nations where more
advanced communication services become available sooner than might otherwise have been the case. With plans developed by governments hopefully elected democratically.<br>
<br>
So, I'm not agreeing that the commission itself is unable to do anything worthwhile just because Carlos Slim doesn't practice what I preach about the social welfare benefits of multiple versus monopoly providers. (And I'll pretend not to notice Jean-Louis's
allegations of corruption, when as far as I know Carlos got his monopoly the old fashioned way, he bought it. ; )<br>
<br>
So yeah Avri and John, if people want to submit docs to the Broadband commission by all means go right ahead. And note there are some high and mighty cs folks at the table already who may be natural allies, even if they don;t hang on the IGC list.<br>
<br>
Honestly though, I don't see the commission coming up with much of anything new beyond some new staff or working group reports, which I expect will be quite good and handy reference material on the state of broadband circa 2012.
<br>
<br>
But I don;t imagine them being influenced or shaped much by grassroots CS, even if one were to try, whether through (domestic) democratic means or though (transnational) ms means. ITU has been a pay to play organization for 150 years, for governments and businesses.
The few CS groups able to afford to - play the game there - are tolerated and even welcomed for their input at times, but certainly not on an equal footing. Since IGC is not in that club, we are not really in this game, which has been going on since 2010
already so at best we are very late to a table we weren't invited to dine at. <br>
<br>
I will say now that I look more closely at what the Commission has done so far and who is playing this game, that there are some very worthwhile folks engaged, eg Mohammed Yunus of Bangladesh of Grameen Bank/Grameen Phone/microcredit/Nobel Peace Prize fame,
joined now also by my old pal Vanu Bose of Vanu Inc. <br>
<br>
It's just I don;t see where they are asking for or looking for IGC's help and input, and don;t see a strategic opening to make the ITU Broadband Commission or any of its working groups a priority for IGC.
<br>
<br>
IGF on other hand, has more than enough problems and needs help...right?<br>
<br>
Or Parminder, do we need to solve the problem of the deficit of democracy for global/multinational processes first? Since I fear that could be a very long wait.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF444650"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder@itforchange.net]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, April 08, 2012 10:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] ITU Broadband Commission<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
The original issue in this discussion was whether conflict of interest is an important principle to ensure and fight for with regard to public policy and governance systems. MS-ism (multistakeholderism) seeks to avoid this question - and that is what I see
in John Curran's response, diverting the issue towards a 'we should participate in any case' discussion. This avoidance is because</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> MS-ism at its heart is based on an inversion of the long held sacrosanct democratic
principle</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> that if one has a clear private interest in an outcome of a policy/ governance system, he/she should not be a part of the 'high echelons' of the system. A stakeholder after all is basically one with
direct 'narrow' private interest or stake in a policy outcome. There is no attempt at achieving of a higher, no doubt politically constructed, public interest. MSism seeks a patch work of accommodating private interests, with the involved actors at the policy
table legitimately pursuing their narrow private interests. Obviously, the most powerful are most able to be present</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> and drive their agenda</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> (there being no 'conflict
of interest' related norm) ...... Additionally, MSism, by its convenient ploy of the 'need for consensus', also by its very nature lead to status quoist, conservative politics.
<br>
<br>
Traditional democratic norms and systems</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> were built</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">, for instance, to keep powerful businesses from directly shaping political decisions. That of course is seen
as 'the' problem by neolibs. MS-ism as a political system is their clever answer to the problem. In order to co-opt civil society, and overall present a more acceptable image, MSism seeks to take up the vocabulary, and outwardly the concerns, of the long standing
demand and struggles for participatory democracy, deepening democracy etc.... Some civil society people have considered it a useful tactical move to go along with this much more powerful global move towards MS-ism (especially when participatory/ deepening
democracy etc have not had that much success). <br>
<br>
My view is that at this junction we need to review - is it that we were able to co-opt the power of the global capital to open up more participatory space, or, whether, we have got co-opted in the big business and neolib plan to supplant democracy.
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Sunday 08 April 2012 09:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On 7 Apr 2012, at 16:22, Lee W McKnight wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>My 2 cents is the general principles/objectives being pushed by the ITU's Broadband Commission are not bad, but the fact of the matter is it more a classic high-level talkathon opportunity than anything else. Submitting docs to them is likely not worth the time it would as Michael suggests. And for CS, certainly not worth the bother of trying to shape/steer at this late date when the dye is cast.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>I am not sure I understand why submitting existing docs, by someone who knew what to submit, was not worth the bother.
On the topic of participating or not. I think that is the wrong question.
If the topic is important and the venue relevant, CS should participate.
The fact of whether we are included at the table or not, would seem to dictate tactics as opposed to participation. There are different ways by which CS makes it views heard, when it has a seat at the table or when it is forced to stand outside the door making itself heard. And if CS is being excluded from this table, and we thinking there is any chance they are going to do something harmful to the public good, then we should be screaming our heads off outside the door and should gear up a campaign to do so.
One of the disadvantages of the multistakeholder model (i bet some of you thought i never saw a disadvantage to the model) is that when we are not included we just sort of whinge and sputter. We have lost some of the anger that made CS a force at WSIS and this is partly because we have changed over all of our methods to Multistakeholder reasonableness. And personally I think one of the reasons we see a pull back in the support of the multistakeholder model by the other stakeholders is that we have become docile, or even invisible, when excluded.
The only time many of the others will allow CS at the table is when they think that excluding CS will be more annoying than having us at the table is. To expect governments or business to it because it is the right thing, is sort of wishful thinking. governments do what make retention of power easiest and business do what maximizes profit. So CS has to be prepared to be disruptive of easy power and profits if it wants to be included in the discussions. And sometimes it just has to flex its disruptive muscles just to remind the powers that be that it is ready to do so.
my thoughts for an easter morning.
avri
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>