Hi Parminder
On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Parminder wrote:
> Bill, Thanks for your comments. No it is never too late. In any case
> we are hardly in a position to submit these proposals on IGC's
> behalf without some kind of discussion on them.
>
> >The title, "Democratic internationalization of IG," would seem to
> suggest that some mechanisms of IG are not at present sufficiently
> democratic, ergo we're >advocating DI.
>
> Democratic above clearly refers to the process of
> internationalization, to put in a caveat for those who easy
> conflate internationalism just with inter-country arrangements. To
> that extent, it is beside the point that I really do think that the
> present arrangements are not democratic enough. Were they
> democratic, why would we want to seek any change/ evolution at all.
> Isnt making all political decision making democratic our basic
> political objective. As pointed out in an email to Milton,
> democratic is always meant in its nuanced evolutionary meanings -
> of constitutionalism, rights, minority protection, civil society
> participation for deepening democracy etc etc.
>
> I am unable to understand why the term multistakeholderism as a form
> of governance, with all its deep structural problems and with
> almost no historical and philosophical/ political theoretical
> examination of the concept, can be used so unproblematically, while
> use of the richly-historical term 'democratic' needs to present so
> many defenses.
I would be the last person to claim that multistakeholderism has a
precise and globally shared meaning, but that's another matter
entirely. Re: democratic, there are different understandings of the
term, so for example the various meanings you and Milton are loading
into it would not be accepted by many political scientists,
constitutional lawyers, or for that matter governments. The problem
becomes even more difficult when we move from national polities with
elected representatives etc to international institutions, especially
intergovernmentals. And re: the above, I don't think CS calls for
change/evolution necessarily are grounded in the assertion that the
(unnamed) present arrangements are not democratic enough. There are a
lot of other bases upon which to critique and call for reforms.
We can agree to disagree, we're not going to sort out our or other IGC
members' respective understandings in time to submit a consensual
proposal by Monday. The main point is that a caucus submission ought
to reflect at least some rough consensus on the core concepts and
claims, and while there doesn't seem to be widespread yearning to
engage on this, I strongly suspect that if we had time for a proper
discussion considerable variation of views would become evident.
Personally, I'd be more comfortable with framing the first half in
terms of participatory/inclusive/accountable internationalization.
These terms are themselves difficult enough, but there's at least
greater intersubjective understanding of their meanings.
>
>
> >Wouldn't it be helpful for us to specify which mechanisms we are
> talking about rather than leaving it abstract, and what exactly
> democratic would mean in these >contexts?
>
> If we accept that US's unilateral political control on a lot of
> aspects of IG, and that of rich country clubs on many other aspects,
> is not democratic and fair,
I and I suspect a lot of other readers would need to know which
aspects exactly we're talking about in order to assess this claim.
And 'democratic' would remain a problematic baseline. 'Fair,' if
taken to refer to the distribution of costs and benefits, probably
would be easier to agree on for at least some of us. Either way, I
don't understand the reluctance to specify the scope of the claim
here. I'm not just being picky or trying to frustrate you, I'm
actually having trouble imagining what a productive workshop
discussion would look like without a clear specification of the
subject matter.
> and therefore not acceptable, about which there is a strong
> sentiment that is propelling the internationalisation debate, we
> will need to come up with institutional alternatives. Our desire to
> look for them depends on the strength of our belief and conviction
> in the above regard. But if I do have to suggest some models,
> models 1, 3 and 4 suggested by WGIG are not a bad place to start from.
The IGC rejected all of these during WSIS...but I guess this indicates
what the intended scope is. You're proposing the ws be about ICANN
'oversight' then?
> Does IGF have a role, as suggested by a recent position paper of the
> IGP? Anything, as long as we are sure that the point where we are is
> not acceptable.
>
> However, if you wish we give a greater clarity about the mechanisms
> we are talking about, i will like to hear your formulation of them.
If I'm understanding you correctly, I'd call it a ws on "Inclusive
Internationalization of ICANN Oversight." But then I'd also imagine
that at least some caucus members would question whether that's really
a topic on which we have enough agreement or can have a non-retro
discussion. Either way, I'm just asking that if we submit something as
a collective caucus proposal, we all actually understand what we're
proposing, per previous practice. For me at least your initial
framing was too abstract to evaluate, much less organize. So let's
say clearly what we mean and see if folks agree with it. If they do,
fine.
Best,
Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090416/aa4701b5/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