[governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> 
> You know I do agree that Internet, and the consequent information
> society paradigm, creates the condition of a new global public, which is
> not simply a sum of national ones. This both requires and creates the
> conditions/ possibilities for a new global polity. And Internet
> Governance needs to be located in this new public. This far we agree.

Yes. And you say it so well.

> But since real world requires real world solutions, we need to
> understand and perhaps agree to the kind of path we should and will take
> to this new 'global public' based 'global polity' ...

Indeed. And I agree that the cover-word "denationalization" does not describe a path, so, bang, ungh, ya got me, sheriff

> One path, which is increasingly dominant and with which I have violent
> disagreement, is based on basically giving in to the leadership of
> global corporates, which is what is happening with most of the private
> governance systems, including ICANN.

True as far as it goes. But since ICANN is a global institution that comes much closer to constituting and responding to a global polity, and since nation-states actively prevent it from doing so, and often prop up and reinforce certain multi-national (not global) private sector interests, then it matters what happens in that venue. And this has a lot more consequence for communication-information policy than the sectoral policy regarding domain names. 

So all this leads up to the Big Question: why aren't YOU helping us in the one arena where this conflict is real and being played out now???

<plug>
NCUC membership application form here:
http://noncommercial-sg.org 
</plug>

> The other possibility is to move towards this new 'global polity' taking
> on from existing relatively democratic institutions - however faulty in
> practice, but much more sound in theory and principles than private
> regimes.

That's really where we disagree. National democracy is based too much on mutually exclusive collective identities and narrow protectionist economic interests to ever get to a global polity. 

But I am willing to concede that there could be a role for states in maintaining a balance of power that contributes mightily to carving out a space that transcends them.

> It is not an easy challenge, but it is relatively easier to agree to the
> basic principles that should guide us. And perhaps the most basic
> principles is to understand and accept the difference between private
> and public interests - very clearly, and assert it repeatedly. Such a

Yes, but too many people in your camp don't understand that it is in the public interest to have a vibrant, autonomous, private sector and rights of private individuals not subject to simple public majoritarianism... How do we get there from nation-states asserting their institutional self-interest and security in a sovereignty-based international system? If 1.2 billion Chinese voters vote that India has really always been part of China, and there are only 1.1 billion votes in opposition what happens?

> A second principle of a viable global polity, and here our differences
> come to the fore, is that you cannot try to build it on free-market
> economic logic alone. 

Free markets rely on a public good, namely equal rights under the law, lawful, constitutional governance, etc. joint recognition of rights, etc. So, yeah, do we disagree?

Well, damn. Another day has gone by and Parminder and I together have not quite solved the world's problems. Let me sleep on it tonight.

--MM
____________________________________________________________
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