<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><BR><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">Parminder historically the structure of the imperialist
system has rested on three key and complementary pillars that have allowed
monopoly capitalists to retain and enhance control over raw materials, labor and
services. The retreat/decline in Keynesian strategies in most of Global South
either by design or our incompetency has slowly filled up by a neoliberal
development paradigm that brings to the forefront the nonprofit complex an
integral component and driving force of today’s imperialism. The expansion of
the nonprofit-corporate complex has created a new class of professionals, who are
more inclined to serve the status quo, rather than working for social change. It
has also forced the nonprofit to become more accountable to funders/donors
rather than to our communities. Take a look around and you will see that many
of the nonprofit are forced to become surrogates to their donors, those
involved in the internet governance landscape are no different. <o:p></o:p></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><BR><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">The one government plus private sector and cherry picked nonprofit
led Internet governance model will not change anything at least for the
marginalised in Global South unless the concept of public interest can be
introduced to override the sectoral interest of certain stakeholders in the
internet governance model. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">Best,</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">Arzak <o:p></o:p></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><BR><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><o:p> </o:p></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br> <BR><div>Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 22:49:35 +0530<br>From: parminder@itforchange.net<br>To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>CC: bestbits@lists.bestbits.net<br>Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening speakers<br><br><pre>Going past nominations by names, I would like to speak about the<br>substance that I want represented in civil society speeches..<br> <br>This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred<br>and development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have<br>a more people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so,<br>what are the reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be<br>done, especially from the point of view of governance of the Internet.<br>Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?<br> <br>The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today<br>than it was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the<br>Internet today, which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough<br>technical advance, but for the present purpose lets keep the focus on<br>its design; is it more people-centric today than it was 10 years ago,<br>and if it is not, does this not point to a failure of its governance (or<br>non-governance) model or paradigm. (No, I am *not* talking about the<br>techno- management of the Internet, or of ICANN, which is a very small<br>and relatively quite an insignificant part of IG, although there are<br>also so many problems in that part of IG.)<br> <br>Although the Internet has so many different angles, aspects and<br>features, to assess whether we have a more or less people-centred<br>internet, with more or less concentration of power on it, lets just take<br>two paradigmatic cases;<br> <br>(1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005, but<br>today social media has overtaken it. Email system was based on public<br>standards written by IETF and other standards organisations, whereby<br>there were no lock-ins and every email service could interact with all<br>others based on these public protocols. Compare that with a Facebook or<br>a Twitter and you will easily see what I am driving at. Yes, such p2p<br>interactive affordances are quite more complex than an email based<br>interaction, but then increased complexity is the way technology grows<br>and it does not mean that public standards in each social media kind,<br>personal life sharing, or public instant news sharing, are not possible.<br>They are very much possible. Just that in those early times the<br>commercial eagles did not have such an evil eye on the basic platforms<br>of the Internet, but today the latter have been shaped into the key<br>means for constructing huge economic advantage through rent seeking by<br>monopolising each 'field'. (The open email system is also being eaten<br>up by Google through various kinds of lock-in and other surreptitious<br>methods.)<br> <br>(2) In 2005, Web was the unchallenged king on the Internet, today<br>proprietary apps are increasingly taking its place. Again, I am not<br>saying that we should not move to more specialised uses of the<br>Internet;s basic platform, if that is what is more advantageous to us.<br>However, the more public nature of the web and the largely proprietary<br>nature of app and the ecosystem in which they thrive today tells an<br>interesting tale, on which I would not expand at this point.<br> <br>As I said, there are just two illustrative examples out of the many ways<br>in which the Internet is becoming more and more controlled by few<br>economic actors, which, I would suggest, correspondingly reduces its<br>people-centric nature. {There is a similar analysis to be made about how<br>governments have sought to increase their control over the Internet. I<br>am admittedly stressing one side of the problem, which in my view is<br>hugely understated in current civil society discourses.)<br> <br>The next point then is, does such a very significant reduction of<br>people- centric nature of the Internet, and a hugely increased<br>concentration of power on it (and the correspondingly distorted 'design'<br>of it, which is determined by its 'governance'), not speak of a failed<br>model of governance (or non-governance, as I must always add). If so,<br>what is our analysis of this failure of IG in the decade post WSIS, and<br>of what should have been done, and what should be done now.<br> <br>I think there is a limit to which we can simply keep extolling the great<br>wonder that the IGF is - we must explain what inter alia has it really<br>contributed, or failed to contribute, to the mentioned very problematic<br>development, which have been taking place under its watch, and the watch<br>of a veritable travelling circus that the global IG scene has become.<br>Even I, who is trying to cut down my engagements with it, find it almost<br>embarrassing to be meeting the same set of people (quite friendly though<br>we are) several times in a year. How does all this square up with a<br>rapidly increasing concentration of power on the Internet. If may also<br>not be a mere coincidence that the last decade of the Internet induced<br>social changes is also the period over which we witnessed one of the<br>greatest concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands!<br> <br>In this background, ones heart cringes to witness, as I had to witness<br>last week in New York, how the UN's WSIS + 10 review process is behaving<br>as if there is just nothing wrong with the Internet, and the manner in<br>which it is effecting large-scale structural changes in the world, in<br>almost all sectors. There was practically no mention at all of the<br>numerous issues in this regard that we read almost daily in the<br>newspapers (Volkswagen's software cheating, John Deere claiming that its<br>tractors are in fact software with mechanical parts, and so on. To<br>mention just two news that I read over the last 2-3 weeks alone. The<br>list in fact is unending). There was no political energy at all in the<br>room (at WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to<br>end quickly so that they could leave. This is quite in contrast to the<br>politically charged discussions during the original WSIS... What has<br>happened in the meanwhile? What is happening to governance of the<br>Internet? We must remember that those who, during the WSIS + 1 process,<br>were needed to make the case for problematic features of global IG today<br>were unable to do so also largely because those who are supposed to<br>produce ideas and do advocacy in this regard, especially as representing<br>those who are most marginalised, have failed to do so. I mean the civil<br>society and the academia.<br>,<br>I will like to vote for such a person to speak as a civil society rep -<br>speaking for the interests of those who are marginalised worldwide - who<br>can bring these critical questions to the table. Someone who can bell<br>the global IG cat, and tell the world that global IG is not working, and<br>the Internet is today largely controlled by big business and people are<br>simply its consumers and clients, and not the owners, which was what a<br>people centric information society and people centric Internet was meant<br>to be...<br> <br>Parminder<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br></pre><br>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance@lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t</div> </div></body>
</html>