[governance] IGF relevance?

Thu Apr 14 11:58:29 EDT 2011

I concur with Milton. I bought this book by mistake on my Kindle and it is a
waste of my money.  To me, it is a well-tried tactic of writing an opposite,
sensationalist view, and it is bound to sell books.  That's all.  For this
level of flawed arguments, I am actually quite amused by the level of
attention he got.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Fouad
> I've reviewed Morozov's flawed arguments in detail here.
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/1/13/4726219.html
>
> all I have time to say for now.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:33 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso
> > Cc: Milton L Mueller; cstd at igf-online.net
> > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance?
> >
> > Hi Milton, you give a mixed opinion. By the way this would be of
> > interest to you:
> >
> > The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World
> > by Evgeny Morozov
> > http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-How-Liberate-
> > World/dp/1846143535/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt
> >
> > Synopsis: "Does free information mean free people?
> > At the start of the twenty-first century we were promised that the
> > internet would liberate the world. We could come together as never
> > before, and from Iran's 'twitter revolution' to Facebook 'activism',
> > technological innovation would spread democracy to oppressed peoples
> > everywhere.
> >
> > We couldn't have been more wrong. In The Net Delusion Evgeny Morozov
> > destroys this myth, arguing that 'internet freedom' is an illusion,
> > and that technology has failed to help protect people's rights. Not
> > only that -- in many cases the internet is actually helping
> > authoritarian regimes.
> >
> > From China to Russia to Iran, oppressive governments are using
> > cyberspace to stifle dissent: planting clandestine propaganda,
> > employing sophisticated digital censorship and using online
> > surveillance. We are all being manipulated in more subtle ways too --
> > becoming pacified by the net, instead of truly engaging.
> >
> > This book is a wake-up call. It shows us how our misplaced faith in
> > cyber-utopia means the West risks missing the real challenges. Morozov
> > argues that we must look at other ways of promoting democracy abroad,
> > and forces us -- policymakers and citizens alike -- to recognize that
> > all our freedoms are at stake."
> >
> > I actually bought the book and going through it I must agree to the
> > fact, network neutral for whom? For us, the developing world or for
> > the developed world and why? Maybe that is the primary question that
> > hasn't been answered at all. The debate cannot stop and the clarity
> > has to be sought!
> >
> > -- Fouad
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> > > Milton, your argument is killed by your second phrase: "This is an
> issue
> > > that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities."
> > > Yes, like crime, privacy rights and so on -- aren't so many gov
> > > decisions on these and other issues done by simple ministerial decrees,
> > > directed at specific or all sectors, which are not really different
> from
> > > regulatory determinations?
> > >
> > > The point is not discarding wksps because the thematic field is one
> > > regulated by the State. Is to get us (at least non-govs) a space to
> > > exchange ideas and develop proposals on how precisely to confront those
> > > mechanisms and decisions from above.
> > >
> > > My point is that wksps are generally too academic, too
> > > one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not), and little is left in terms
> > > of what many of us defend for the IGF itself -- at least a consensus
> > > around proposals for action organized in a document. For me this is the
> > > main problem which makes most of them useless (like a stream of
> > > first-world phds presenting generalist views on "development and ICTs"
> > > etc etc), not because some of the themes relate to State's regulatory
> > > mechanisms or because the theme is already well discussed.
> > >
> > > frt rgds
> > >
> > > --c.a.
> > >
> > > On 04/14/2011 12:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a
> > >> Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will
> > >> be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the
> > >> various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired.
> > >> Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in
> > >> this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC
> > >> rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find
> > >> some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter
> > >> into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and
> > >> national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is
> > >> the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law
> > >> that matter, not IGF.
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry
> > >> out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background,
> > >> see this recent IGP blog article:
> > >>
> > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > > In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy
> but
> > > go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a
> > > public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue?
> > >>
> > >> It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues,
> > >> ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate
> > >> globalized institutions.
> > >>
> > >> One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to
> > >> be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where
> > >> it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional
> > >> environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute
> > >> anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN
> > >> organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and
> > >> others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic
> > >> problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding
> > >> the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can
> > >> actually do something about.
> > >>
> > >> --MM
> > >>
> > >>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110414/49377e00/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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