[bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

[michael gurstein]

More...

-----Original Message-----
From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:47 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

remake the governance of the global (Internet)Comments inline

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Inline…
>
>
>
>
> On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> [MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment upon… there is no definition, 
> no articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can 
> respond to

sure there is, you just ignore them.  Sala just posted yet another.
[MG>] huh? and that incoherent, internally contradictory mess has been approved by who exactly? (and sorry Sala you tried your best...


> and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and 
> elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image.

NO, the opposite is true.  The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes.  It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)"
[MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments...

> Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of 
> intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to 
> buy—cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by 
> others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) 
> corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their 
> increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global 
> governance of which the Internet is only one—

No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance.
[MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at 
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steercom%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf
http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014
etc.etc.
>
>
> An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone’s measure and one that is 
> particularly disgusting

slanging again.
[MG>] hardly slanging... it was a straightforward expression of my opinion

because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part
> thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or 
> even knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC 
> are you
> listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to 
> provide voice for.
>
> They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these 
> implementations have been fiercely resisted.  Do I even need to 
> mention this?  Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status 
> quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - 
> how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status 
> quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance?


Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism.  We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial.
[MG>] yes, so...

>
> [MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table 
> (apart from the bizarre flourish of calling it “Participatory 
> Democracy”--I can call my cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn’t 
> make him any less of a cat or any more of dog) doesn’t “represent” 
> anyone other than those who show up or are allowed to show up and 
> through them the interests that they represent. BTW, I’m all in favour 
> of Deliberative (and Participatory for that matter) Democracy, the 
> problem is that neither of these bears any relationship at all either to the current practices or “theories” of MSism.


untrue.  If you had any experience with the "classical" as you call it, you would know this.
[MG>] as I said I claim no expertise in "classical" MSism and choose never to publicly comment on it as a result


> [MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling it… we 
> really are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation 
> state in this context.  Democracy began outside of nation states, 
> certainly developed within the context of nation states but is neither 
> by definition nor by necessary practice confined within the framework of nation states.
> BTW I completely agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit 
> between democratic accountability and traditional nation state 
> structures and as I mentioned, in what I think was my first 
> contribution to this thread, I am extremely interested in 
> collaborating with others in exploring alternative strategies for 
> democratic practice which better fit with the opportunities and risks of the globalized Internet era.
>
> We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views 
> here that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth 
> there is on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their 
> own list where they can advance their models of state-based ordering, 
> while the rest of can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment.
>
> [MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you 
> like, they just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are 
> commenting on…


more slanging
[MG>] sigh...

M

rgds,

McTim