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

Tue Mar 18 14:27:44 EDT 2014

Hello Pranesh,

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> [2014-03-16 13:37:31]:
>
>  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???
>>
>
> Yes. A consensus model without a rights framework that safeguards
> minorities can be harmful to minorities.

One way of thinking is to clamor for the rights of men and women to be
equally represented, developing and developed countries proportionately
represented (giving rise to a sub-debate on whether weightage is to be
given to the size of population, quantum of wealth, geographic size, size
of the present Internet usage, or the size of the potential Internet usage,
or the acceptability of the country's political ideology, or by a ranking
of its own governance standards), north and south to be equally
represented, east and west to be equally represented, each continent to be
equally represented, rich and poor to be equally represented, technical and
non-technical users to be equally represented, proprietary and
non-proprietary philosophies to be proportionately represented, secular and
religious nations to be equally represented, people of different religions
to be equally represented, people of each and every language to be
represented, able people and differently able people to be proportionately
represented, &c

Some may argue that this would be the way to go. But the danger lies in the
complexity and impracticality of seating a representative from every
conceivable division. That could lower the process to a process of degraded
politics. Added to that would be the danger of particular groups of
individuals being or becoming concerned with promoting their own private
group's interest at the expense of common good; Within the equally,
proportionately, or more-than-proportionately (as often in the case of
minorities)  represented groups, some would have a louder voice and gain
greater influence to reap disproportionate benefits.

Are we to assume, for instance, that any governance system where a certain
religious group or a linguistic minority group  is not actually in the
governing council would enact laws that are harmful to that religious group
or that linguistic minority that is not actually seated in the council?
 What we need is a Governance mechanism BEYOND DIVISIONS that would at all
times consider the common good, including the good of minorities or the
voiceless.

Rousseau talks about the "lawgiver", we could equate the lawgiver to a
seated Member of the Internet Governance, "This individual is the
"lawgiver" (*le législateur*). The lawgiver is guided by sublime reason and
by a concern for the common good, and he is an individual whose enlightened
judgment can determine the principles of justice and utility which are best
suited to society."

The way forward is by insisting on individuals of above traits to be seated
in positions. The hope lies in the design of the multi-stakeholder model
which is open to scrutiny by everyone - everyone belonging to any of the
innumerable groups that I struggled to enumerate. Strengthen this model,
evolve this model, far greater justice will prevail.

>
>  "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.
>>
>
> You mean to say that Internet governance can be devoid of politics?  I
> don't see how that is either possible nor why that would be desirable.

There is politics in Internet Governance. My idea is to minimize politics
by avoiding divisions.

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian M

>
>
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140318/b1041603/attachment.htm>