[governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks

[parminder]

Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> I have read and hear your opinions several times. I also mentioned 
> that I do not give support to any inter-gov. organization since 
> results can be for the good and for the bad. I prefer to take a more 
> reactive approach, see what is going to happen. In any case, the 
> deadline is short and I cant run this through my organization for a 
> discussion before your deadline. So I do not have an institutional 
> position on this as of now.

Sure, Katitza. I expect people and institutions to think their positions 
and endorsements through, and am not insisting that they sign up on the 
proposed statement or any such thing. Mine are more general political 
comments. Exclusion of 70-80 percent of world's population from 
plurilateral activities of rich countries is at least as important as 
exclusion of CS in any structural format of governance.

For instance, do you think CS orgs involved with environmental issues 
will stop pushing for international agreements on climate change related 
steps simply because of the fear that, to quote your words, there may be 
'no certainty about our (CS) involvement in equal footing"

Or  could we stop seeking access to knowledge related agreements under 
development agenda in WIPO bec of the same fears, esp when ACTA kind of 
things are in the offing.

What makes IG any different? In politics non-action is also an action, 
in favor of some interests or others.

Which is not to say that we should not seek more participative and open 
governance structures for all of the above.

 parminder

>
> On 12/11/10 11:17 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101212/8ef07af4/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