[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Eric Dierker]

I think the key here, that is quite "grounded, is the term "enabled". Enabled and empowered are great terms.  The practical is definately required after the psycho-anthropologic mechanisms are in place.  A ten thousand dollar bicycle does nothing for the health of the wealthy owner who sits on his couch watching while others do.
 
It is imperative that through education and outreach we get people active and interested in their own governance.  I have found that while very bright people can use the net and be perfectly satisfied that it requires techies to keep their access running smoothely.  When you ask them about policies that allow their access and content and rights they just look at you like you are from mars. Countries still do not get it. Successful enterprises do get it. It is socially irresponsible that they do not share that knowledge --  yet we can see why they to not.
 
I once had cards that said I was a Global Information Technology Strategist.  I think I know what it meant but not really.

--- On Wed, 10/14/09, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:


From: David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 4:12 AM


> What the Internet has enabled is to add a layer which can combine representative with participatory democracy.

I believe there is very little evidence to this effect.

The Internet, like other electronic media, _can_ speed up the feedback loops, from governed to those governing, and in the reverse direction.  Whether that occurs and has effect on those governing turns, as usual, on the humans in the loops.  Are they engaged?  do they care?  do they respond? etc, etc.

There are plenty of modern day cases, such as the miraculous turn around in US administrations where all the old verities still, so sadly, apply - polarized hard right versus hard left, etc.

And the 'representatives' still make the decisions.  Just as one for instance, financial interests in the US still call those shots, through the elected 'representatives,' never mind a near-death experience aka almost-a-Depression.

> The principle of multistakeholderism is the very concrete outcome of this development.

Again, I believe an accurate analysis sees the emergence of other than state actors onto the governance stage as part of a complicated evolution over quite some time.  Certainly, technologies play some part.  But numerous factors play a part, certainly, in cases, with much more impact than comms tech.

Blithe propositions, elevating our favorite stuff, are tempting.  But somewhat more grounded analysis may well serve us more accurately.

David
____________________________________________________________
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/20091013/813f1606/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