Fwd: Re: [] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

[parminder]

On Friday 14 March 2014 10:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> On 14-Mar-14 09:06, parminder wrote:
>> However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for
>> instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several
>> others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for
>> instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – in
>> 'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on
>> your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such equality of
>> all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of
>> specificity, of 'making actual public policy decisions'.
>
> With all due respect, you omit one consideration that is central to my 
> submitted discussion on the equality of stakeholders, whether 
> government or non-government
>
> "When one starts to consider the responsibilities of each of these 
> roles one finds that the responsibilities also vary over issues, time 
> and are subject to the phase of a process."
>
> http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/discussion-of-principles-related-to-stakeholder-roles-and-responsibilities/201 
>
>
> So yes, stakeholders, qua being stakeholders, are equal in my 
> analysis.  But their roles vary according to issue, phase of 
> discussion, process and many other features. Sometimes one stakeholder 
> group holds the primary deciding responsibility and sometimes others do.

In which case my question is specific, and deals with a particular 
'issue' and a particular 'phase of discussion/ process'...

The concerned issue or matter is 'public policy' and the phase is 
'actual decision making'.

Other than the fact that every term and meaning can forever be contested 
and argued about, I believe that both 'public policy' and 'decision 
making' have rather clear meaning in political space. And so, my 
original question was, and remains, "do you think that every stakeholder 
has an equal role in public policy related decision making"?


> But all always have an equal right to be heard as part of the process.

All people - if you want to call the stakeholders, well, fine - always 
have an equal right to be heard, there is no doubt about it. It is the 
very basic principle of justice. Where is the question. But right to be 
heard is not the same as right to make public policy decision nor of 
vetoing them - which is at the crux of many institutional processes for 
global Internet governance that have been submitted to the NetMundial 
process.

(BTW, Never could understand why not just say 'all people' rather than 
'all stakeholders', because stake has obviously to be self defined, and 
the act of showing desire to speak and participate is a self-statement 
of stake, and so we can as well say all people everywhere rather than 
stakeholders have a right - which becomes operational only if they 
exercise it, but whatever....)


>
> I further suggest in my submissions that:
>
> " As we move forward, we need to set aside time and effort to better 
> understand and recognize the diversity and complexity of roles and 
> responsibilities in Internet governance."

There is a political vacuum right now, which is being filled by dominant 
economic and political forces to shape the Internet as per their 
interests. Soon it will be too late as the socio-technical architecture 
of the Internet is set, and along with it some key contours of society's 
power relationships. The luxury of infinite time to think and react is 
not available to those who find themselves, or their constituencies, 
holding the short end of the stick, which keeps getting shorter..

parminder
>
> thanks
>
> avri