[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Avri Doria
avri at psg.com
Sun Nov 7 12:08:58 EST 2010
Hi,
Answering the questions I think are on topic, using a very restrictive definition of 'on topic'.
1. When I say I am against a centralized model, i am not saying i am against a globalized model. I favor globalized models, but think that there can be several overlapping globalized efforts without needing to centralize it under one Central Committee for Internet governance (CCIG). I have no issue with globalized IG groups being formed, in so far as they don't already exists, to go into any and all of the issue in IG in the broader sense. I just don't buy into a CCIG.
2. I think the multistakeholder model is a way toward greater democracy and people centered modalities, you think it is a distraction. We might as well, as they say. 'agree to disagree' I would say that I would endeavor not to distract you ever again, but I now that every time you call it a distraction, I will find it necessary to argue for its importance. If we want to talk about how the multistakeholder model is being introduced as a way of 'deepening democracy' to use your term, and whether the multistakeholder model it could be done more effectively, I am ready to work with you. But as long as you want to cast it into the dustbin of IG history, I will resist that call as I think that is dangerously regressive.
3. As for the OECD, i think introducing the multistakeholder model into the OECD is a step in the right direction. But it has only be a year so I am not sure how far it as gotten - certainly would like to hear more from those who are involved in this effort.
a.
PS. while I wish I was a globalized world citizen, as you know it is not possible for me to really be such. as a somewhat a realist, i have come to the conclusion that for at least my life time, the national encapsulations are something that need to be accepted, and some things just need to be done within the encapsulation. and in any case, thee will always be a local context to anything, for some defiintion of local.
On 7 Nov 2010, at 11:48, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday 07 November 2010 06:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do support government action, especially on the local level. I will avoid getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on this topic.
>>
>>
>
> Avri, I dont consider this off topic. I still have no response from you on how can US health insurance kind of policy that you root for ever be arrived at by a fully and only multistakeholder model of policy making, the kind you prescribe for global IG policies. A response to the question is at the heart of the matter in my opinion. I am ready to accept any policy making model in global IG which you can show can even theoretically arrive at a US health insurance kind of policy.
>
> And if your non-answer means that while you are for policies with possible redistributive impact at national levels but not for such policies at global level i still need to know the rational for this. Especially from someone like you who is awovedly a globalist, and tend to see the whole globe as her home beyond national boundaries. In that case how can you disclaim any need for global substantive policies in IG (as in other arenas) beyond technical mangement ones in which I have little interest. Is the fear of the global redistributive possibilities of a global polity, which I can easily understand drives many developed country govs stance in this area, implied here. However I am unable to understand it coming from you.
>
> Neither did you answer my question about what are my options for democratic participation in how OECD countries are right now writing global Internet policies among themselves, and then forcing it on others, while they have handed this toy of MS-ism for CS to keep itself occupied. That is the real distraction, not this particular discussion we are having which seeks, from my side, to put limits on this distraction that much of IG civil society is caught, away form real things and real decisions.
>
> Also representational democracy plus participatory democracy has a long history of both theory and practise - it is deepening democracy, and not the MSism we see in IG spaces. This strange speak of IG grids and spaghetti balls as governance systems will get the goat of any grassroots practitioner of participatory democracy.
>
> Parminder
>
>> Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on deciding all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again just as example, when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular state's (US definition of state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically tailored multistakeholder model. I see this model of policy making as the next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a form of representational democracy + participatory democracy. And I see it as something we are still learning about.
>>
>> Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of rough/near consensus, not full consensus. But that would be another long topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a multistakeholder environment - another field in which we are still growing in experience.
>>
>> Sorry my model was not specific enough. I propose a decentralized model that includes the groups that are already working on issues and avoids creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion of appeals and arbitration mechanisms. It is a model of step wise refinement, and model that includes the many things we see happening already in the 'IG grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I don't mind the term, i like grids as long as they are not 2 dimensional).
>>
>> I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for wasting the group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff was happening an real stuff needed to be decided. So I will stop now.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Avri,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the present.
>>>
>>> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite insightful.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not my position, man. e.g. I want a government led/regulated single payer health system in the US.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums , which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus, also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your model.
>>>
>>> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.
>>>
>>> Further, you asked is your governance model 'specific enough'. Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me how I can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties rather than done by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet related issues included in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All this will be pushed through FTAs on non OECD countries. Many policies and preferences of the West just come through technology models - and we take it or leave it, such is the global might of the involved tech companies, who of course do much more carefully listen to US gov and stronger European countries.
>>>
>>> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again, any particular reason? parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum. Be careful though. When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always someone you can convince with your absurd argument. Just look at recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times. But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive, transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system, or a bad one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any governance system can and should go beyond the governments. First, all governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments, the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be democratic. True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1 vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just 1 landowner 1 vote ...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy. Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list