<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net" target="_blank">suresh@hserus.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And most civil society in India would rather not find themselves in a position where everything moved to the UN and decision making became a largely, or is it solely, intergovernmental process.<br></blockquote><div><br>If it is a decision with global impacts, there's no legitmate way around having a global intergovernmental process (other than a global referendum, and how do we do that right now?)<br>
<br>The problem, in a nutshell: <br> <br>If you really care about an issue and have tried to pursue democratic change, then you know:<br><br>1. To change one's small town or village politically is <i>relatively</i> easy (compared to what follows).<br>
2. To change one's local state, province or territory is much harder, there are many more people to persuade and distance to overcome... <br>3. To change one's nation politically is harder yet: to do it alone often reminds one of Hercules. <br>
4. To move more than one nation? Forbid the thought! This may require superhero status. :) <br>5. To move all the world's nations to action, via direct popular appeal or via a UN "intergovernmental process"? The difficulty nearly staggers the mind. <br>
<br>In light of the difficulty of just changing one nation, former US President George W. Bush joked that things "would be so much easier if I were a dictator." Indeed, they would be. <br><br>In light of the extreme difficulties of moving the entire world via the United Nations, one is highly tempted to favor lesser hurdles, like that of moving a smaller multi-stakeholder process provided one has good access to it or a vote on it. <br>
<br>The desire to support multi-stakeholder process, all too often motivated by revulsion for the task of moving the world's governments, is quite understandable, but it is at the same time of the same general species as wishing one were a dictator so as to avoid the great difficulties of politics, especially democratic politics. These motivations implicate efficiency, often allege greater wisdom and expertise on the part of the dictatorship, aristocracy or oligarchy that is created. But they have those unavoidable democracy-deficits.<br>
<br>People who legitimately care greatly about issues and are otherwise quite democratic-minded are sorely, sorely tempted to support processes that are something more "efficient" than democracy. But efficiency, expertise and manageable size do not create legitimacy in governance or the right to govern those left without even the pretense of a vote or say but who are nevertheless controlled by the decisions and rules made.<br>
<br>Paul Lehto, J.D.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
--srs (iPad)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 26-Oct-2012, at 1:47, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> While it is obvious that the Daily Mail article was _not_ an impartial and sober assessment of the situation, it does seem to unearth background documents indicating that the CIRP proposal came from IT4Change, i.e., from Parminder, not from a groundswell of support from "the global South." And it calls into question the degree to which the Rio conference agreed on the proposal, indicating instead that Parminder found it easier to gain the assent of a few governmental officials behind the scenes, than to get broad, democratic support from civil society, the IGF, or other stakeholders.<br>
><br>
> It is also interesting how quickly Indian ministers, not to mention Brazil and So. Africa., backed down when the proposal was challenged. Since it wasn't their idea, they were unable to defend it.<br>
><br>
> A lot of things can be attributed to the power of industry and the U.S., but the lack of support for CIRP is not one of them. There just is no popular support for greater UN involvement in Internet governance. My understanding from various civil society organizations I have met from India is that the CIRP proposal was not popular there, either. It is all in keeping with my general take on Parminder's ideas, which seek to replay 1970s-era battles between U.S. hegemony and third world sovereignty, with sovereign nation-states being confused with "democracy," at a time when sovereignty is either irrelevant to, or a regressive overlay on, global Internet governance.<br>
><br>
> As for the assertion that the CIRP proposal had nothing to do with ICANN, it is all on record, it called for domain name registration taxes to fund the thing and contained a statement that it would "coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting."<br>
><br>
> An accurate description and analysis of the CIRP proposal can be found here. <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/10/29/a-united-nations-committee-for-internet-related-policies-a-fair-assessment/" target="_blank">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/10/29/a-united-nations-committee-for-internet-related-policies-a-fair-assessment/</a><br>
><br>
> Milton L. Mueller<br>
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
> Internet Governance Project<br>
> <a href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org" target="_blank">http://blog.internetgovernance.org</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-">governance-</a><br>
>> <a href="mailto:request@lists.igcaucus.org">request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of McTim<br>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:12 PM<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; parminder<br>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] U.S. - Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the<br>
>> Internet Economy<br>
>><br>
>> Parminder,<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:44 AM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> <snip><br>
>><br>
>>> Does anyone here have answers why they remain silent with regard to the<br>
>>> active work of rich countries to develop 'global' Internet policy<br>
>>> principles, and react so rabidly to any effort at democratising global<br>
>>> Internet policy making.<br>
>><br>
>> My reaction is that CIRP was NOT an effort to make policy principles,<br>
>> rather an effort<br>
>> to make IG LESS democratic (in a top-down gov only style).<br>
>><br>
>> It's clear we see the world differently.<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>> McTim<br>
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
><br>
> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Paul R Lehto, J.D.<br>P.O. Box 1 <br>Ishpeming, MI 49849 <br><a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a><br>906-204-4965 (cell)<br>
<br><br><br><br><br><br>