<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 28 September 2014 12:27 PM,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div style="color: black;">
<div style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black; font-size: 10pt;">An
utterly
disingenuous take on a shallow article </p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black; font-size: 10pt;">Also
who is
actually paying the various people in the multistakeholder
community? </p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black; font-size: 10pt;">You
too are a
stakeholder and doubtless the money you spend on airfare to
various igov
events doesn't materialize from thin air </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The only time I will post to this particular post-er - simply bec
this is a matter of public accountability, and all kinds make the
public which however does not reduce the accountability. <br>
<br>
All of mine and IT for Change's funding are on our website
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ITforChange.net">www.ITforChange.net</a> , see annual reports) , we also provide a 'your
right to know' button which encourages anyone to ask us questions
about us which we promise to respond to in 15 days. We think such
transparency and accountability is basic to civil society and those
who are not ready to do so have no right to claim to be working for
public interest. (Except in the extreme cases when such transparency
would hurt the particular public interest that any group works for,
which is rare, and the exception cannot be extended to be the rule.
The rule is transparency.)<br>
Time and again we have encouraged all civil society individuals and
groups in the (highly political) IG space to do the same, but got
little response, sometime even aggressively negative response. This
was one of the main reason of estrangement of some people with
bestbits group's leadership, but people were willing to make members
unhappy and decrease their engagement then take up the issue of
funding transparency.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:148bb0c5a30.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<div style="color: black;">
<div style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black; font-size: 10pt;">So
what is the
objection here? </p>
</div>
<div style="color: black;">
<p style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial,
sans-serif; margin: 10pt 0;">On
28 September 2014 12:05:02 pm parminder
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0
0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left:
0.75ex;"> <font face="Verdana"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fast-lane-slow-lane--no-l_b_5865996.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fast-lane-slow-lane--no-l_b_5865996.html</a><br>
<br>
This article tell you what non regulation of the Internet
is about, and it still does not even talk about the free
run that global Internet monopolies seeks.<br>
<br>
No, it is not about "Internet freedom" - that is a clever
cover up, but many of us are all just too eager to
believe.<br>
<br>
(Freedom of expression is important but of course US gov
and US corporations have no real interest in it.)<br>
<br>
</font>In 1997, the United Nations adopted the Model Law on
Electronic Commerce that had been developed by the UN
Commission on International Trade Law. In fact the India's
IT Act 2000, which is still the omnibus law in India
governing electronic transactions, makes reference to this
Model Law in its preamble.<br>
<br>
Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce,
can we not discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP
based telecommunication and net neutrality. Can anyone
answer this simple and obvious question for me? Please, I am
serious. <br>
<br>
But no, that will be blasphemy. Those are all attempts by
governments to take over the Internet, watch out! Why?
Because US tell us so. And so many of us are happy to take
our cues from the US, and its political and corporate
allies. (Has it anything to do with from where the money
flows?).<br>
<br>
We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a
model law on IP based telecommunications, and on net
neutrality. <br>
<br>
But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail,
and a lot of resources thrown into it. The musical for the
next meeting in Busan in Korea has already started. ( <font
face="Verdana"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/09/the-state-departments-plan-to-spark-a-global-sopa-style-uprising-around-internet-governance/">http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/09/the-state-departments-plan-to-spark-a-global-sopa-style-uprising-around-internet-governance/</a>
). Wait and see how the "multistakeholder community" that
mystical organism, dances to one tune, that which emanates
from the US. I feel pity for all the risks that Snowden
took and the sacrifices he made.<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
parminder <br>
</font> </blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>