[governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks

[parminder]

Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> In my personal capacity, I have the same concerns that Mc Tim 
> mentioned here. IGC is moving an agenda where there
> is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing. As I 
> mentioned, since this is quite a short time, and we do not have yet
> a position on this issue, I can't endorse that statement.
Katitza and McTim

One, IGC's statement clearly asks for any future structure to involve 
CS. That is a big part of our main enhanced cooperation statement. 
Wikileaks parts just highlights the kind of basic substantive issues 
involved here. So, how do you judge that we are 'moving an agenda where 
there  is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing'.

Second, OECD/CoE initiatives do not have anything close to involvement 
of CS on an equal footing. Worse, the globally non-democratic and 
non-inclusive nature of these initiatives makes it rather quite 
'certain' that, when the crunch comes, the decisions/outcomes will favor 
richer countries and other dominant groups. Is it not obvious.

I often wonder about the nature of this 'political fiction' of civil 
society being by and in itself a political constituency, and the way 
propping this fiction has become the main task of many in the IG CS space.

I am civil society (as in organized CS) only as a political expedient.  
My basic  politics  is to represent and serve the interests of those 
people and groups who I see as  structurally and systemically 
marginalized in current power equations. parminder  

> It would be good that you listed the names of those who support it. 
> Thanks.
>
>
> On 12/11/10 10:33 PM, McTim wrote:
>> Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al,
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM, 
>> parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>>> Hi Jeremy
>>>
>>> "The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how global 
>>> Internet
>>> cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use of 
>>> political
>>> and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this 
>>> approach of
>>> using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always likely to be 
>>> abused,
>>> as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks case. 
>>> Second, in
>>> possible cases where it may legitimately be required to employ some 
>>> urgent
>>> global governance responses to real problems or threats (or perhaps 
>>> even
>>> opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away, backroom 
>>> levels of
>>> power based on raw political and commerical might, as employed by some
>>> governments and their corporate cronies in the present case, are not
>>> available to less powerful political players or countries. This 
>>> situation
>>> bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally democratic 
>>> principles
>>> and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet governance, 
>>> which is
>>> the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced cooperation
>>> should address itself to. "
>>
>> I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so hypothetical, if
>> the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by).
>>
>> If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework"
>> of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its
>> development, would you all still be in favor of said framework
>> building?
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101212/a3fbdfd2/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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t