[governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline

[Parminder]

>May I remind here that HR also include economic, social and cultural 
>rights, and the right to development, not only civil and political 
>rights (Meryem)

Milton wrote:

>>I don't understand the relevance of this. You don't need to introduce
>>ideological debates about what "rights" are in order to justify a role for
>>HR - or any other caucus - in IGC. (I myself have no idea what a "right to
>>development" is. I picture a group of people sitting on the ground and
>>refusing to work, waiting for their economy to develop because they have a
>>"right" to it.) Of course HR is a significant factor in global governance,
>>and specifically Internet governance. >>>>

Milton, I am sorry to say this, but your rubbishing of the 'right to
development' is alarming for someone who often leads CS interventions in IG
consultations. 

And ideological debates are not un-necessary - they are the very basis of
what we are doing here. The de-politicizing of IG debates is the reason of
much of the exclusion (or keeping away) of many actors from these lists/
discussion spaces. 

>>I've read it. It still misses the point: development is a _product_ of
>>successful policies, not a "right" which can be claimed or asserted
>>against other social actors. If a society chooses the wrong policies -
>>policies which waste economic resources, misallocate resources, thwart
>>human capabilities, destroy potentialities, etc. - they won't develop. No
>>assertion of a "right" will change that. >>>>

Which 'right' is not the result of successful policies...!!!!

And even if result of successful policies, as you say, how would one ensure,
enforce, those policies...... That's where the language of rights come in...

And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by individuals and
communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation states, to
global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS, but you
seem to have very different views.....

And you have mentioned some policy issues in development but not the issue
of redistribution policies, (which is a big part of every developed
country's social system as well). And your list of options show a very
specific view of development, which is NOT ideologically-neutral. Though it
is the long-standing tactic of this particular ideology to present itself in
ideology neutral terms. 

So many of us (I am sure its the majority) were at WSIS, and got into IG
issues, for no other reason but for assertion of rights and progressive
ideologies, and the right of development is one of the main focuses. So when
one gets faced with such trashing of these rights - and their long fought
for and long established formulation - one begins to wonder what is it that
one is doing here. And what are the common grounds over which we all here
are trying to work together. 

What is it that we really share to be working as a group. 

At no other CS forum or grouping at global advocacy level have I seen such a
lack of clarity on the bare minimum basic unifying ideological issues. 

And this brings me to the issue of structure of the forum. While I agree
with the majority that status quo is the best option, we still need to have
some clarity on basic unifying common grounds for us to work together as a
group. And just the multi-stakeholder principle, an issue which begs the
question - MSP for what, cannot by itself be the unifying principle. 

This is a 'status quo plus a bit more' option for IGC structure, but I think
this is an important bit. This bit is important for the IGC to be effective
and, it is important for everyone to know what minimums are taken as given
and agreed among us, as a group.

Some views have been expressed on this list in the last few days to the
effect that we need to discuss some imp IG issues at times other than when
we are hurrying to make a submission - so that we are more prepared when the
time comes for interventions. I think this is quite necessary. For one, the
very imp March end deadline isn't far away, and IGC should be tossing around
possible issues that can be submitted to the formal process around the IGF
as priority issues.

Best 

Parminder   

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:08 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus



>>> Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> 3/3/2006 8:11 AM >>>
>A good idea may be to stop picturing and start reading. An entry  
>point may be found there: http://www.unhchr.ch/development/right.html 

I've read it. It still misses the point: development is a _product_ of
successful policies, not a "right" which can be claimed or asserted against
other social actors. If a society chooses the wrong policies - policies
which waste economic resources, misallocate resources, thwart human
capabilities, destroy potentialities, etc. - they won't develop. No
assertion of a "right" will change that.


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

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