<!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 text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
Hi Lee<br>
<br>
On Monday 09 April 2012 08:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0AFD27@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<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>
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); 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. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Cant agree to this. I will again take the example of Mubarak's
authoritarian regime
and the fundamentalists in Egypt. Basic principles remain important,
whether or not a governance/ policy system is democratic,
multistakeholder etc, independent of the efforts and outcomes of such a
system. I am surprised to hear you say that such issues of principles
are 'only tangentially tied' to any particular governance/ policy
system being spoken of. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0AFD27@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">So
now
you've pushed me to defend the ITU Broadband Commission : (<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
And you remind me of the promise I made to John Curran that I will
later come to the issue of actual outcomes of the Broadband Commission.
:)<br>
<br>
During WSIS, civil society from the Sought fought, with help from
developing countries, for getting enough references in the outcome
documents about public
investments apart from promoting market friendly policies in the
telecom sector. The years since the WSIS have proved that this was a
right thing to do; public investment is much needed to ensure full
inclusion. It has been realised that it is even more important in the
fixed line, broadband sector. In the last few years countries ranging
from Australia, Sweden (Stockholm) and the US (almost) to South Africa,
Brazil and
India have set up public sector led broadband
initiatives. <br>
<br>
In the circumstances, one would expect that a commission on broadband
giving its report in 2010-11 would provide good prominence to the need
for
public sector funds and initiatives for an inclusive broadband
infrastructure. Now, pl pick up the Broadband Commission report and
read it. It is a rather one sided celebration of market friendly
policies with
no significant mention of public funds and public sector initiatives.
Is this not misleading? Would one not suspect that the chairmanship and
other membership of the Commission (with strong conflict of interest)
had something to do with this...<br>
<br>
As I read the report I see many parts that, I remember from the WSIS
rounds of negotiations, would not have passed muster of the
assembled group at the WSIS. So, do you see a problem here, with the BB
Commission kind of MSism.... And as I
said, experience since the WSIS has further proved the need of the
public sector playing an
important role in setting up broadband
infrastructure. <br>
<br>
You say, wont it be useful if 10 countries picked up the Report and
developed their national broadband plans, 'because of it'. I am not
sure that today it needs a commission to tell any country about the
need for a broadband plan. It may be more relevant to think about the
danger that because
of this Report 10 or more countries take it that it is the received
wisdom today that the public sector should keep away from any active
role in developing national broadband infrastructure, when precisely
the opposite is a common policy perspective and trend today. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0AFD27@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;"><br>
SNIP<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
And with that expedient wipe under the carpet the problem of a severe
global democratic deficit. No, I cant agree. We need to pursue
pragmatic and principled approaches in tandem, not one at the expense
of the other.<br>
<br>
There is a saying in Hindi; if you plant the seeds of <i>Kikar</i> (a
thorny worthless tree) you wont get a <i>neem</i> tree (one with
legendary medicinal value). It kind of nicely sums it up. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0AFD27@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<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 size="2"
color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
on behalf of parminder
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, April 08, 2012 10:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] ITU Broadband Commission<br>
</font><br>
</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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>