[governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

[Parminder]

> Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any
> decision-making authority for civil society in binding international
> policy processes

Jeanette

What binding processes are you referring to....

And I find the whole argument strange... You seem not to want governments to
exercise power, and CS should not be part of any power system.... I find
such anarchic dispositions very dangerous to civilization. 

Power is a part of every social structure, and is more formally approached
and acknowledged in public policy arenas... we cannot just wish away power
and authority.... and if one does so that simply serves the status quo. 

More democratic and accountable power systems rely on distributed power -
and differentiated power roles - power of legislation, of execution, of
extracting accountability, of voting in governments, of media and flow of
information, power of advise, power of expertise etc etc ..... there are
many forms of hard and soft forms of power - and civil society has differing
roles in different areas...

I think some representatives of civl society (chosen in howsoever imperfect
manner) exercising power, along with the balancing presence of other
stakeholders, of laying agenda of global discussions on Internet policies,
and issuing non binding recommendations is quite right.... and very much
needed.

I wonder why and how you think MAG members do not exercise power at
present.... they of course do... 

Recognizing power relationship is the first step in seeking structural
changes in favor of the disadvantaged, and refusing such recognition, a
simple propagation of the status quo.

Parminder 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 2:57 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet
> community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'
> 
> Hi,
> at this state of things I would argue very much against any formal
> decision making authority for the MAG. We are still in a state of
> experimenting with multi-stakeholder processes. For many governments it
> is not easy to deal with a membership so heterogeneous in terms of
> authority and legitimacy. Even to acknowledge each other can be a
> challenge. Processes such as WGIG or the MAG need a protected space in
> order to evolve. No decision-making power is one element of this
> protection.
> 
> Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any
> decision-making authority for civil society in binding international
> policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that
> specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we
> simply lack legitimacy to do so.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> >
> > I must though mention (in relation to my earlier email on Brazilian
> > co-chair)  that I agree with the Brazilian position stated at the May
> > consultations and re-stated in September consultations that instead of
> > the present situation where all authority and power is vested in the UN
> > Secy General, and the MAG merely advises him, it is better to move
> > towards a more empowered IGF committee or something (this is not
> > necessarily connected to IGF's recommendation giving possibilities,
> > which can be discussed separately, and not also to a 3 or 4 part bureau)
> > that exercises authority on its own behalf. We should be happy to have a
> > multistakeholder body exercise this authority rather than the UN Sect
> > General and the connected bureaucracy.
> >
> > I don't see members of IGC taking any view on this, which is surprising.
> > What is the justification in not wanting IGF related powers to be with a
> > multistakeholder group, rather than this group that just advises the UN
> > Secy General.  Why are we not promoting real CS stakeholdership in
> > global governance, and rather pulling back from a process that seeks to
> > do so?
> >
> > Why our exaggerated fears of a strong IGF more important that the
> > possibility of CS being an equal part of a substantive and self
> > governing global governance body?
> >
> > However, I won't like to see governmental co-chairship of MAG as a
> > process towards such substantive strengthening. I prefer a UN Sec Gen
> > nominated chair.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> >
> > Parminder Jeet Singh
> >
> > IT for Change, Bangalore
> >
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> >
> > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> >
> > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> >
> > www.ITforChange.net
> >

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance