[bestbits] OFF-TOPIC - Brazil: Return to Terror

[David Cake]

> On 29 Oct 2018, at 10:13 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29/10/18 3:47 AM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote:
>> Very sad that this has happened, Carlos. Lurches to the right seem commonplace these days. 
>> 
>> Brazil was a great leader as regards multistakeholder internet governance initiatives, and I do hope that all is not lost with this change. Certainly what has been achieved in the past sets a great example and part of history which I hope is not forgotten.
>> 
>> Ian
> 
> 
> I dont want to make capital out of unfortunate times, but truth is as important to speak out at such times, if we are not just to make pro forma regrets but to look ahead with vision and purpose, and thus any real hope....
> 
> Dear Ian, do you really think that a multistakeholder model which culminated in trying to install a World Economic Forum based global Internet Governance regime instead of a UN based one was itself not a lurch to right? That is also history that must not be forgotten, and released from its responsibilities.
> 

	Thinking of it as left/right is simplistic. Authoritarian governments come in both left and right varieties. The UN has proved to be very good at providing a way for authoritarian governments, such as the Saudi and PRC regimes, to have strong international influence. 
	The UN system has the Saudis as active, influential member of the Human Rights Council - do you think that Internet Governance would be better off if regimes like KSA were more influential? 
	Following the UN system is to empower anti-democratic states, and thus weaken civil society. Why do you think that is leftist? 

	Or to put it another way - why are you still simplistically equating the UN system with ‘the left’ or ‘democracy’ after all these years, when the arguments that that is a simplistic and problematic position have been made again and again, and never really answered?

> The current Trumpian phenomenon is precisely the product of a trans-national elite seeking their common economic advantages often using the cover of social liberalism without economic egalitarianism -- where market without political governance was to be the defender of rights!

	And you won’t find many defenders of neoliberalism here - but there is some value in defending actual liberalism, such as valuing democracy over authoritarian states. 

> This is a direct result of promotion of an one-sided talk of human rights -- only civil and political ones and not social and economic ones, which have openly been flouted even ridiculed on , yes, IG civil society lists.... Dot ask me for real examples, bec I have followed this and I know many….

> Ok, take two, the very concept and not just the real implementation of 'public interest' has been ridiculed on the NCUC (of ICANN's)website, to which many CS stalwarts of IG belong.

	Indeed, because the concept of public interest has been coopted within ICANN to justify policies that have no real connection to the public interest, such as expansion of trademark interests. The PICS (Public Interest Commitment System) has been gravely abused to enforce policies like a globally protected trademark list that have been rejected through community policy processes. In other words, NCUC has doubts about the use of public interest arguments because they have been used to justify the sort of policies I expect you would oppose. 
	It is fair to say that NCUC is divided over the question of whether the public interest can be defined in a useful manner that is meaningfully defined yet limits its potential for this form of abuse. But I don’t think you would be in disagreement over the problematic use of public interest arguments. 

> And so lets not assume innocence about this creeping death of progressive and democratic ideals that the global trans-national elite has brought on us in blind pursuit of their global economic interests (Zizek's 'Clinton not Trump is the problem' precisely captures it). 

	And that you find neoliberalism implicitly more problematic than authoritarianism is consistent with your positions in IG, and I will continue to find authoritarianism the bigger enemy. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t push away from neoliberalism back towards more liberal democratic ideas - but that is precisely why I support governance mechanisms in which civil society has a strong voice, because it allows us to have a voice in policy so it is not simply dominated by commercial and (early lobbied) government voices. 

	Regards

	David