[governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals

[Parminder]

Garth Graham wrote:
> On 12-Jul-09, at 12:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>>  Garth, can you give us the definition of "Internet model" of IG that 
>> you are using, please?
>
> Yup....
>
> "The Internet’s success is largely due to its unique model
Yes, and and the failure of IG to protect public interest is also 
largely to its 'unique' non-working model. One must distinguish between 
a technology model and a governance and policy model about it. Internet 
is the defining paradigm of new social structures that definitionally 
have deep socio-political implications - FoE, privacy, equity, social 
justice, rights etc. These implications are of a very different nature 
than the issues involved in developing the basic technology model (while 
they are closely connected too).  Free-for-all 'governance' systems in 
relation to these socio-political issues is called the 
law-of-the-jungle. And the impact of it has shown.

> The Internet model:
> • Shared global ownership without central control
> • Collaborative engagement models (involves researchers, business, 
> civil society, academia, governments)
> • Development based on open standards (which are also openly 
> developed, with participation based on knowledge rather than formal 
> membership)
Techno-centred thinking valorising meritocracy over democracy is one of 
the problems here, and your description above illustrates that problem. 
Participation and rights based on 'knowledge' !!!! Nothing will kill 
democracy faster - it is very Nietzschian .

> • Key principles (such as the “end-to-end principle”)
The best example to show how the law-of-the-jungle is working in IG 
arena as Nero plays the flute of bottom-up and peership. The 'end-to-end 
principle' is dying in front of our eyes, daily there are transgressions 
on it, and soon it will be too late. The Internet we know will be gone. 
Only way to confront this situation is a convergent political position 
and action by the global community, but that can t come through your 
'Internet model of govenrance', can it. Pl do tell me if it can. I am 
most interested in urgent resolution of this problem and will join in 
with any kind of action for this purpose. And if you indeed have no 
solution to this basic IG issue, pl stop selling this Internet model at 
least in areas of socio-political significance, because it does a lot of 
harm to devleping appropriate govenracne structures for the Internet.

I do think the Internet has changed (and will further change) the 
institutions and structures of governance as it changes every other 
institution/ structure. However, the change is not such a complete 
make-over to call it an Internet model of governance. Internet provided 
new models of participation and decision making, deepening democracy, 
can take us to new levels of 'public transparency' etc.... however, this 
all is not what you seem to think is the emerging Internet-influenced 
new model of governance, and thus I am completely against your 'Internet 
model of governance'.

> • An open, bottom-up, freely accessible, public, multi-stakeholder 
> processes for both technology and policy development "
>
> ...quoting Bill Graham, ISOC, Strategic Global Engagement  
> http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/aba-igov-20080809.pdf____________________________________________________________ 
>
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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