[governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options'

[Jacqueline Morris]

Parminder

About substantive issues - opinion on the issue of privatised
governance is not consistent throughout the developing world. As a
person from the developing world, albeit on the other side of it from
you, privatised multistakeholder governance mechanisms are gaining a
lot of traction here in the Caribbean. We do not think that this is a
negative thing by any means.
 We also are somewhat divided in the concept of governments being the
good and the true representatives of the people, as we have a history
of some very nasty totalitarian governments, governments that have put
their own interests above that of the people they purport to serve,
governments that do very little for the people. The private sector is
viewed in many places here without the negative associations that some
others from the South seem to view it. Thus, as another developing
world citizen, it isn't quite true that the opinions that you profess
are representative of the "South" as a whole, and you should include
that caveat as well.
Given that one of the issues that is being raised here is the
narrowness of breadth of support for IGC positions on the issues, it
is necessary to follow this concept through in ALL areas. You cannot
condemn lack of inclusiveness and diversity in views on the one hand,
but do the same on the other. Given that the South is not well
connected, you may not be hearing many of the views of other
Southerners from other areas not your own, thus my intervention here.

And wrt ICANN being the " legitimate representative of the whole
population of the world" - it is quite obvious that the context is
within its mission - which is narrowly defined. However, if it is
successful, then I see no reason that you cannot use the methodology
to apply in other spheres of global governance.

Jacqueline

On 11/6/05, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Hi Jeanette,
>
> You have been avoidably sensitive in blaming me for aggression,
> dis-crediting members and damaging the space of IG list/caucus. Such blame
> has the effect of stifling debate.
>
> I did not discredit anyone nor use aggression. I used every word I wrote
> with discretion and a good amount of thought. And I have tried to study
> issues in the last few weeks about IG, and the manner of its advocacy in CS,
> and thereupon interposed my opinions here because I felt that some important
> advocacy issues that I and my organization believe in needed to be
> addressed. I can assure you that I did not take all this effort for the
> purpose of discrediting anyone.
>
> I don't understand why would you accuse me of such a thing. And why would
> you not see that I only highlighting issues in their connection to a point
> of view which I was presenting, (and one can judge, I strongly believe in).
> Even if you do not agree with it, I request your patience with it.
>
> And you have bypassed all substantive issues in my email. For example, about
> the strong views that are held on privatized governance in civil society
> across the world that haven't found much expression here. And, to give
> another example, if everyone really does agree that the whole world is the
> 'internet community' today, what exactly are these reforms that I keep
> hearing about that ICANN is soon going to do which will make it legitimate
> representative of the whole population of the world. It indeed will be very
> interesting to learn about them because if ICANN indeed is going to be able
> to do this, I am ready to trust it with many other pressing non-IG global
> governance issues as well...........
>
> Regards
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de]
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:25 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight
> options'
>
>
> Hi, Parminder,
>
>   I personally am not for very stringent
> > conditions for this purpose - and I expect that any chosen person will
> > recognize that she or he can only represent the group's view and not
> > their individual view.
>
> Ok, I think this is what most people on this list think.
> >
>
>
> > Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move
> > only within a given spectrum of positions on IG.
>
> I don't know what you mean by given spectrum of positions. If you mean
> to say that all people who participate in ICANN support its current
> structure, you are clearly wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >  So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not even
> > figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I think it is
> > because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by default, as a CS
> > position on IG.
>
> If you had followed the discussion on this list over the last year you
> would knew that this is not true. Please consult the archive.
>
>   >
> > If we mean to view IG caucus as even somewhat representative of IG view
> > of CS at WSIS; and CS at WSIS as at least trying to be representative of
> > the wider global civil society,
>
>  From my point of view, we (CS at WSIS) don't represent anybody beyond
> CS at WSIS.
>
>
> > And IG is not an isolated issue; it is connected to, and has
> > implications for many other issues,
>
> I agree, and I think this is one of the strong points made by the WGIG
> report.
>
>
> >
> >  ICANN is fond of speaking about the 'internet community' - and I had
> > argued in my last email that, today there is no specific Internet
> > community - everyone is (or needs to be) impacted by the internet -
> > hence the world community is the Internet community.
>
> I'd say that most people on this list share this view.
>
>
>
> >  And with people associated with ICANN dominating the IG caucus, it can
> > be expected that the views that will emerge from the IG caucus will be
> > on a narrow band
>
> Again, I don't think its fair to assume that . Despite the fact that
> many or most of us are in some ways related to ICANN, we disagree on
> many issues. We all hold our own views, and official positions held by
> ICANN don't have much influence on those views.
>
>
>
> > I will put forward comments on the specific language in the draft in
> > another email.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > So the position as circulated in the draft, will only lend support to
> > the US position.
>
> Again, I don't think this is an adequate description of caucus
> positions. The disagreement among caucus members on political oversight
> is about the future roles of governments in Internet Governance. The USG
> seems to think that it solved this issue back in the 90s. I wouldn't
> know of anybody on this list who shares this position.
>
>
>
> I notice that the tone on this list becomes somewhat agressive recently.
> I don't find this very helpful. We all depend on a space where we can
> meet and offer our various views for discussion. We damage this space
> when we descredit its members or its losely defined rules.
>
> We all know that we have to discuss the future constitution and purpose
> of this caucus after the summit. To initiate such a debate right now
> seems a bit pointless. Amen.
> jeanette
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance