VS: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG

[Parminder]

> we should be aware that sometimes this might make it more difficult to

> defend public interest against economic interests (at least in my country

> the cathalytic converter for cars would not have become mandatory in a

> non-hierachical ms automotive community
). 

 

Exactly the case as quoted by Stephane regarding current tech governance.

 

>>Fora like the IGF never discuss practical things, focusing instead on
politician matters like >>the number of seats in a board. This is the
challenge that CS should now take.

 

>>Otherwise, the Internet will be ruled by the big and wealthy companies. A
recent Internet-draft >on the design process of the new architecture
(>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-burness-locid-
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-burness-locid-%3eevaluate> >evaluate)

>>says it quite bluntly:

 

     > >Key players must not be disadvantaged, or they may try to obstruct

      > >standards or restrict deployment



 

Equivalents of success of cathalytic converter in Germany may not be
possible in a tech governance regime, as at present, with inadequate
sensitivity to the distinction between public interest and economic/
business/ private interests. Also a problem of category and interest
definitions, and limits all-our-interests-are-shared (at least for non-gov
categories) approach.

 

Parminder 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de]

> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:23 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-

> halle.de

> Subject: Re: VS: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF

> MAG

> 

> Dear Wolfgang,

> 

> This time I agree with most of what you said. But to me it looks as if you

> hesitate to make the final logical step: The idea that there are three

> distinct “stakeholder” groups – cs, business and government – is in itself

> a relic from the industrial age. Actually, in a world were consumers

> become investors (nice reading stuff: “Supercapitalism - The

> Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life” by Robert

> Reich), and democratic governments at least partly fight for business

> interests, a non-hierarchical “one third for every stakeholder group”

> approach finally leads to a superior role for the business sector (that’s

> why our friends from the ICC are so enthusiastic about the IGF setting).

> Taking into consideration that business is a driving force for innovation

> and growth, I’m not saying that this is generally a bad development, but

> we should be aware that sometimes this might make it more difficult to

> defend public interest against economic interests (at least in my country

> the cathalytic converter for cars would not have become mandatory in a

> non-hierachical ms automotive community
).

> 

> Michael

> 

> _______________________________________________________________________

> Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 30 Tage

> kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=022220

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080303/f9375602/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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