<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 Monday 01 December 2014 02:56 PM,
Avri Doria wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:547C344A.9070808@acm.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01-Dec-14 04:56, Guru wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net"
type="cite">The reason why many of us are concerned about Brazil
participation in a space (WEF) that 'belongs' to the business
elite of the world, is simply that many of us consider Brazil a
global leader in supporting policies programmes for social
justice, human rights, democracy. </blockquote>
<br>
And maybe they have come to the realization that is better to work
with the so-called elite and work to change them, than it is to
remain on the outside and vilify them. Vilification may feel good
and may make one feel morally superior, but it gains very little
in the long run except for constant strife and division among
ourselves.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If we indeed generally are into being good and accommodative,
perhaps we could be as giving and gracious with regard to the UN and
its institutions as well, whether the ITU or a new possible space
for Internet governance and policy. But we do not offer them similar
considerations, do we. They are of course the bad guys. So bad that
their vilification does not even qualify to be called as
vilification. <br>
<br>
UN or any such (institutionally) democratic form of global
governance should be kept away from anything Internet! So, it is
made to appear that the world will come to a halt if the word
Internet but gets into the ITRs of the ITU. And even if, at the ITU
Plenipot, developing countries propose new studies and measures for
data protection and against privacy intrusion, we look the other
way, because, because, there are unknown terrors hiding behind
anything that ITU does even if the intentions on the surface look
good. Contribute in all ways possible to retard the WSIS plus 10
political process, the phase 3 of WSIS, and hope it just goes away
somehow. (Look the other way when the developing countries seek a
full WSIS style prep process, in Geneva, and developed countries
simply refuse, and force on us just a small UN GA event.)<br>
<br>
However, the WEF and the global elite deserves a chance! We should
not vilify them! That to me and those of my kind of politics looks
like a strange logic, but also something we have now come to expect
in these spaces.<br>
<br>
So, no, supporting the new WEF centred or initiated NMI is not just
going along with anyone who is ready to work on key global IG
issues. (We wont have any objection to any 'normal' WEF initiative
in the IG space as they have in many other spaces.) <i><b>This is a
specific political choice exercised between the traditional
global governance systems, like the UN based ones (how much ever
in the need of reforms they might be) and new neoliberal
governance systems like the WEF based one. The political
responsibility for making this choice must be taken. </b></i>It
cannot be dodged. <br>
<br>
Do not make it look like an innocent choice; 'well let them also be
given a chance when they are eager to contribute' kind of a thing.
This is is basically one kind of global governance system rejected
in the favour of other.... That is a stark political choice that a
good part of IG related civil society made last week, and CGI.Br
made, which we what we oppose. We have the right to be vociferous in
our opposition, because both civil society actors and CGI.Br are
responsible to the public. But sure, of course we are the vilifiers
in speaking of the WEF as representing the global elite, not those
who foam at their mouth every time UN or the ITU is mentioned. <br>
<br>
To anticipate the response I expect to this, something like, we will
as happily participate in ITU/ UN if they too offer an equal footing
arrangement like the WEF/ ICANN initiative has done. No, they cannot
offer it, because unlike the WEF et al they are into serious
business of global policy making in global public interest. Not in
the business of obfuscating and retarding policy making, as
neoliberal systems aim at (so that the powerful are left to their
own devices). The same way as national political systems are into
serious policy making and would never never, in no country, ever
offer an equal footing arrangement at the policy making table. But
sure WEF can offer this arrangement. Because it needs to make no
policy, only resist legitimate policy making. And such resistance
can very well get done through an equal footing arrangement. <br>
<br>
Yes, morality is a big considerations in making these political
choices, and not at all a bad word for us. It ought to be the
bedrock of what motivates civil society not convenient political
arrangements with the most powerful.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:547C344A.9070808@acm.org" type="cite"> <br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>