[bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

[Guru गुरु]

well said, Mawaki
regards
Guru

On 03/17/2014 03:23 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Dear Sivasubramanian,
>
> Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of 
> democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the 
> former) that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most 
> recent case of Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can 
> happen to something called democracy and formally designed as such, 
> you bet that can happen to a multistakeholder governance structure. 
> After all, what does "multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you 
> think it will necessarily and always function as a better democracy? 
> Is there anything in the word that suggests so? No. Can stakeholders 
> turn out to form a smoke screen diverting from the interests of the 
> larger public or the people? You bet they can.
>
> Mawaki
>
> p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe...
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M 
> <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Mawaki
>
>
>     On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango
>     <kichango at gmail.com <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hello,
>
>
>         On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M
>         <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Hello
>
>                 IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model
>                 to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals
>                 of democracy, including due consideration to the
>                 rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>
>
>             "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>             contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>             Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next
>             step in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room
>             for this model to contradict the ideals of democracy???
>
>
>         Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to
>         yourself since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that
>         sentence by re-typing it instead of just reading the original
>         one correctly. It reads: "does NOT contradict..."
>
>
>     No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does
>     not". The rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was
>     making is that the premise underlying the condition was not valid.
>     So I asked "Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the
>     next step in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for
>     this model to contradict the ideals of democracy???"
>
>     Thank you
>     Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>             "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a
>             Global process, open for participation from all
>             stake-holders, from every nation, the policies that would
>             emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
>             intention behind this thought about the "rights"
>             of minorities might be noble, but as unintended
>             consequences, this idea of special attention could
>             lead to politicization of the process.
>
>
>         This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with
>         special interests or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put
>         the following in parentheses in front of the word
>         'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy' precisely to
>         signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
>         minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about
>         inclusiveness and consensus building. I was trying to avoid
>         limiting the reference to democracy to its most common
>         instances or simplistic understanding whereby the winner
>         (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
>         whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests
>         of the minority into consideration while governing (think of
>         Egypt and the democratically elected President Morsi.) More
>         precisely (and completely unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I
>         borrow the notion of "rights of minorities" from Hannah Arendt
>         in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I hear you and will
>         try to reconsider the wording.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Mawaki
>
>             In India the intention to protect minority interests began
>             with policies of special attention, special laws and
>             reservation of seats for minorities in education, work and
>             politics and this move to ensure social justice has also
>             caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the
>             Government's openness to representation by Special
>             Interest and Lobby groups, at least occasionally, results
>             in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby
>             group wins over the muted voice or silence of others.
>             Certainly a global process can not create a situation
>             where minorities would be neglected, but this needs to be
>             achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness
>             of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we
>             could say "all"
>
>             Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>     India +91 99524 03099 <tel:%2B91%2099524%2003099>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/48c08ed6/attachment.htm>