From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jun 1 02:16:18 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:16:18 +0800
Subject: [governance] Public comment draft of A2K amendments for UN
Guidelines for Consumer Protection
Message-ID: <4DE5D932.6090808@ciroap.org>
A new international instrument on Access to Knowledge (A2K) could be in
the wings, with the first public release of a draft set of proposed
amendments to the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection.
These forward-looking A2K provisions are the culmination of months of
online and face-to-face collaboration by Consumers International members
from around the world.
The draft A2K amendments are now officially open for broader public
comment at http://A2Knetwork.org/guidelines.
The UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection, which recently celebrated
their 25th year, are a "soft law" statement of principles for consumer
protection policy. From this document, the global consumer movement has
drawn its eight consumer rights, which include the right to safety, the
right to be informed, the right to choose and the right to be heard.
In proposing A2K as the next area to be added to the Guidelines by the
UN, we have drafted amendments to:
* Set minimum standards for essential copyright limitations and
exceptions for consumers.
* Stop suppliers from using technology to cripple digital products
or unreasonably limit the ways in which consumers can use them.
* Promote a permissive approach to copyright to facilitate
non-commercial creativity by consumers.
* Require that the dissemination of consumer safety information, and
consumer-facing codes and standards, is free of copyright constraints.
* Prohibit IP rights from being enforced in ways that trample on
consumers' human rights.
* Ensure that consumers retain access to their own data in formats
that they can use, and that such data is projected against misuse.
Your input on the draft amendments is invited between now and 31 August
2011. The online working space for the amendments allows you to browse
the Guidelines section by section, and to attach your comments to
individual paragraphs in a threaded fashion. All comments will be taken
into account and responded to by the drafting committee.
We look forward to collaborating with you on this important initiative.
--
*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent
and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member
organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
_www.consumersinternational.org _
_Twitter @ConsumersInt _
Read our email confidentiality notice
. Don't
print this email unless necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL:
From anriette at apc.org Wed Jun 1 06:55:25 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:55:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] Public comment draft of A2K amendments for UN
Guidelines for Consumer Protection
In-Reply-To: <4DE5D932.6090808@ciroap.org>
References: <4DE5D932.6090808@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4DE61A9D.4060708@apc.org>
Thanks for this, Jeremy. It looks good. And it is very useful for us to
have for discussions on how to protect online freedom of expression, and
free flow of information.
Frank la Rue's report on the Human Rights Council has some good
references on this. I copy below:
Anriette
D. Disconnecting users from Internet access, including on the basis of
violations of intellectual property rights law
49. While blocking and filtering measures deny access to certain content
on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to
the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by
discussions regarding a centralized “on/off” control over
Internet traffic. In addition, he is alarmed by proposals to disconnect
users from Internet access if they violate intellectual property rights.
This also includes legislation based on the
concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on
copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service,
such as the so-called “threestrikes- law” in France and the Digital
Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.
50. Beyond the national level, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
(ACTA) has been proposed as a multilateral agreement to establish
international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.
While the provisions to disconnect individuals from Internet access for
violating the treaty have been removed from the final text of
December 2010, the Special Rapporteur remains watchful about the
treaty’s eventual implications for intermediary liability and the right
to freedom of expression.
On 01/06/11 08:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> A new international instrument on Access to Knowledge (A2K) could be in
> the wings, with the first public release of a draft set of proposed
> amendments to the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection.
> These forward-looking A2K provisions are the culmination of months of
> online and face-to-face collaboration by Consumers International members
> from around the world.
>
> The draft A2K amendments are now officially open for broader public
> comment at http://A2Knetwork.org/guidelines.
>
> The UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection, which recently celebrated
> their 25th year, are a "soft law" statement of principles for consumer
> protection policy. From this document, the global consumer movement has
> drawn its eight consumer rights, which include the right to safety, the
> right to be informed, the right to choose and the right to be heard.
>
> In proposing A2K as the next area to be added to the Guidelines by the
> UN, we have drafted amendments to:
>
> * Set minimum standards for essential copyright limitations and
> exceptions for consumers.
> * Stop suppliers from using technology to cripple digital products
> or unreasonably limit the ways in which consumers can use them.
> * Promote a permissive approach to copyright to facilitate
> non-commercial creativity by consumers.
> * Require that the dissemination of consumer safety information, and
> consumer-facing codes and standards, is free of copyright constraints.
> * Prohibit IP rights from being enforced in ways that trample on
> consumers' human rights.
> * Ensure that consumers retain access to their own data in formats
> that they can use, and that such data is projected against misuse.
>
> Your input on the draft amendments is invited between now and 31 August
> 2011. The online working space for the amendments allows you to browse
> the Guidelines section by section, and to attach your comments to
> individual paragraphs in a threaded fashion. All comments will be taken
> into account and responded to by the drafting committee.
>
> We look forward to collaborating with you on this important initiative.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent
> and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member
> organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international
> movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> www.consumersinternational.org
> Twitter @ConsumersInt
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice
> . Don't
> print this email unless necessary.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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
From anriette at apc.org Wed Jun 1 10:38:22 2011
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 16:38:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Joint statement by Special Rapporteurs
Message-ID: <4DE64EDE.9000408@apc.org>
Apologies for mailbombing you on online FX... but it is an important IG
issue! It is clear here at the Human Rights Council in Geneva that it is
also a very new issue for the human rights community.
Freedom House convened an event earlier today with a very good panel..
but not that many attendees.
Here is the link to a good joint statement special rapporteurs working
on freedom of expression and opinion.
http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/international-mechanisms-for-promoting-freedom-of-expression.pdf
JOINT DECLARATION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE INTERNET
The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and
Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of
American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and
the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special
Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information,
--
Mentions of net neutrality, intermediary liability, access, blocking etc.
Shorter version of Frank la Rue's report.
Anriette
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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
From katitza at eff.org Wed Jun 1 10:46:58 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:46:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] Joint statement by Special Rapporteurs
In-Reply-To: <4DE64EDE.9000408@apc.org>
References: <4DE64EDE.9000408@apc.org>
Message-ID: <4DE650E2.9060805@eff.org>
Many thanks Anriette. Keep bombarding us with all this juicy information!
Here is EFF reaction's to Frank La Rue Report.
U.N. Special Rapporteur Calls Upon States to Protect Anonymous Speakers
Online
http://www.eff.org/UN-Special-Rapporteur-Protection-Anonymity
All the best,
Katitza
On 6/1/11 7:38 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Apologies for mailbombing you on online FX... but it is an important IG
> issue! It is clear here at the Human Rights Council in Geneva that it is
> also a very new issue for the human rights community.
>
> Freedom House convened an event earlier today with a very good panel..
> but not that many attendees.
>
> Here is the link to a good joint statement special rapporteurs working
> on freedom of expression and opinion.
>
> http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/international-mechanisms-for-promoting-freedom-of-expression.pdf
>
> JOINT DECLARATION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE INTERNET
> The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and
> Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
> (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of
> American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and
> the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special
> Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information,
--
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
____________________________________________________________
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
From katitza at eff.org Wed Jun 1 11:05:26 2011
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 08:05:26 -0700
Subject: [governance] New OECD guidelines to protect human rights and social
development
Message-ID: <4DE65536.7020408@eff.org>
http://www.oecd.org/document/19/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_48029523_1_1_1_1,00.html
5/05/2011 - Ministers from OECD and developing economies will today
agree new guidelines to promote more responsible business conduct by
multinational enterprises, and a second set of guidance to limit the use
of conflict minerals.
Forty-two countries will commit to new, tougher standards of corporate
behaviour in the updated Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: the
34 OECD countries plus Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Latvia, Lithuania,
Morocco, Peru and Romania. The updated Guidelines include new
recommendations on human rights abuse and company responsibility for
their supply chains, making them the first inter-governmental agreement
in this area.
The Guidelines establish that firms should respect human rights in every
country in which they operate. Companies should also respect
environmental and labour standards, for example, and have appropriate
due diligence processes in place to ensure this happens. These include
issues such as paying decent wages, combating bribe solicitation and
extortion, and the promotion of sustainable consumption.
The Guidelines are a comprehensive, non-binding code of conduct that
OECD member countries and others have agreed to promote among the
business sector. A new, tougher process for complaints and mediation has
also been put in place.
"The business community shares responsibility for restoring growth and
trust in markets," said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. "These
guidelines will help the private sector grow their businesses
responsibly by promoting human rights and boosting social development
around the world."
Ministers from adhering countries will also agree to a Recommendation
designed to combat the illicit trade in minerals that finance armed
conflict.
Illegal exploitation of natural resources in fragile African states has
been fueling conflict across the region for decades. While data is
scarce, it is estimated that up to 80% of minerals in some of the
worst-affected zones may be smuggled out. The illegal trade stokes
conflict, boosts crime and corruption, finances international terrorism
and blocks economic and social development.
The Recommendation clarifies how companies can identify and better
manage risks throughout the supply chain, from local exporters and
mineral processors to the manufacturing and brand-name companies that
use these minerals in their products.
The OECD and emerging economies worked closely with business, trade
unions and non-governmental organisations to produce both sets of
guidelines.
For further information or comment on conflict minerals
,
journalists should contact Lahra Liberti
of the OECD's Investment Division (tel. + 33 1 45 24 79 47).
For further information or comment on the OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises
,
journalists should contact Kathryn Gordon
of the OECD's Investment Division (tel.
+ 33 1 45 24 98 42).
Read the remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 2 00:03:53 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:03:53 +0800
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
Message-ID: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
This is a reminder that we are again selecting a new nominating
committee for the IGC. We need a pool of 25 nominees, from which 5 will
be randomly selected. Any list member is eligible to put their name
into the pool. So far we have 1 position filled out of 25. Please
reply to me or Izumi if you are willing to put your name into the hat.
Thank you to the previous committee who were Qusai AlShatti, Hempal
Shrestha, Ian Peter, Gurumurthy K and Jacqueline Morris. They are
eligible to renominate if they would like the opportunity to serve again.
--
*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent
and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member
organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
_www.consumersinternational.org _
_Twitter @ConsumersInt _
Read our email confidentiality notice
. Don't
print this email unless necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL:
From devonrb at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 00:30:34 2011
From: devonrb at gmail.com (devonrb at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 04:30:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
In-Reply-To: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
References: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <308421040-1306989034-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1275251846-@b5.c7.bise6.blackberry>
I am putting my name in the hat, as a new member howevr I wpuld like some more information about the role I am expected to play.
Devon
Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Malcolm
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:03:53
To:
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
This is a reminder that we are again selecting a new nominating
committee for the IGC. We need a pool of 25 nominees, from which 5 will
be randomly selected. Any list member is eligible to put their name
into the pool. So far we have 1 position filled out of 25. Please
reply to me or Izumi if you are willing to put your name into the hat.
Thank you to the previous committee who were Qusai AlShatti, Hempal
Shrestha, Ian Peter, Gurumurthy K and Jacqueline Morris. They are
eligible to renominate if they would like the opportunity to serve again.
--
*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent
and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member
organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
_www.consumersinternational.org _
_Twitter @ConsumersInt _
Read our email confidentiality notice
. Don't
print this email unless necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 2 08:43:22 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:13:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Fwd=3A_The_=91Viral=92_Revolutions_?=
=?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Spread_Across_Europe?=
Message-ID: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
Hi All
The article below from India gives a southern view of the current
political impacts of the internet and the deeper politics behind it.
Important to notice how the key issue here was economic but it turned
into a demand for political change and new practices of 'real
democracy'. We dont necessarily have an alternative model here, but it
is such new institutional possibilities of participatory democracy that
may have become available today that are exciting and must be explored.
Regret to say, the simplistic notions (involving co-option) of
multistakeholderism that we hear so much about as the next political
system is not at all the right direction. In fact, in the form it mostly
gets spoken of and practised in IG arena, it is very much the wrong
direction. Parminder
http://kafila.org/2011/05/30/the-viral-revolutions-spread-across-europe/
The ‘Viral’ Revolutions Spread Across Europe
May 30, 2011
tags: austerity measures
, democracy
, Greece protests
, Indignants
, Spain
by Aditya Nigam
*The New Democratic Upsurges*
The mainstream Western media that celebrated the democracy movements in
the Arab world not very long back, is relatively silent now. For, then
it was the Arab youth’s striving for the ‘western values’ of democracy
that it was celebrating. Now that the cry of ‘democracy’ is arising from
its very midst, it does not seem to quite know what to do. From May 15
on, for almost two weeks Madrid and other Spanish cities have been
witnessing some of the largest demonstrations in recent memory.
Protesters have thronged the Puerta del Sol, virtually camping there. As
government forces started cracking down, demonstrations began to grow in
an ever expanding scale spreading to many other Spanish cities. When the
government moved to ban demonstrations on May 20, in the run up to the
regional and municipal elections, the protests acquired an even more
militant form. A ‘snapshot’ of the rallies in defiance of the ban:
The initial protests against the planned multibillion euro bailout plan
for banks, austerity measures and against high unemployment almost 45
percent among the youth), according to reports, were not very large but
when the government responded by arresting several activists and
demonstrators, things started going out of hand. That was the ‘spark
that lit the prairie fire’. As Ryan Gallagher’s report
in
the /New Statesman/put it:
A demonstration against the arrests was organised in the city’s main
square, Puerta del Sol, and numbers soon snowballed when word got
out over the internet. What began as a group of fewer than a hundred
activists reached an estimated 50,000 within less than six days.
The protesters whose arrests had sparked the initial demonstration
were released and immediately returned to the square. By the time
they arrived, the demonstration was no longer just about their
treatment at the hands of the police. It was about government
corruption, lack of media freedom, bank bailouts, unemployment,
austerity measures and privatisation.
Here is another video of a fierce battle being fought on the streets of
Madrid:
According to a report in Der Speigel
,
The protesters have occupied the square for days now, with some
comparing the gatherings to those that took place on Cairo’s Tahrir
Square earlier this year, and demonstrations also continued for the
fifth day in a row on Thursday in Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao and
Santiago de Compostela. Spaniards living abroad have also set up
protest camps outside the country’s embassies in Berlin, Paris,
London and Amsterdam. Most of the events have been organized online.
After organizing demonstrations in around 50 cities last Sunday, the
Real Democracy Now (the name of the movement that coordinates the
Spanish struggle – AN) movement became a household name virtually
overnight.
By the end of May, the movement had now spread to Greece where, for the
fifth consecutive day yesterday, an estimated 100, 000 people were
demonstrating at the Syntagma square in Athens. Below the parliament
building they stood, chanting ‘thieves’, ‘thieves’ and carrying placards
that said ‘Poverty is the greatest abuse’. Initially calling themselves
the ‘indignants’, the protesters in both Spain and Greece gradually
coalesced into this loose federation with a website and a Facebook page
by the name of Real Democracy Now (see their Manifesto in English
translation here ) that
rapidly had over three and a half lakh members signing up. And virtually
in tandem with the Spanish movement’s call for ‘real democracy’, the
Greek movement too has transformed the struggle against austerity and
bailout measures into /a struggle for a changing the political system
itself, into a struggle for radicalizing democracy/.
Athens demonstrations
Athens Syntagma square, image courtesy Greek Reporter
*The Question of ‘Politics’*
This mutation of the essentially ‘economic’ struggle against the bailout
plans and austerity measures into a political struggle for the
transformation of the very terrain of democracy tells us something
serious about the relationship of traditional forms and institutions of
politics and their growing conflict with popular aspirations. The call
for ‘real democracy’ comes in a context where the political parties and
the formal political domain is being seen as highly corrupt and deeply
implicated in the politics of predatory corporations and banks. By and
large, not only political parties but often, even the unions have been
bypassed by the mass mobilizations – an index of the relative redundancy
of these structures of formal democratic politics. A report in the
l’Humanité put it:
/No trade union, let alone a political party. The workings of
traditional dispute are outmoded, and even deliberately excluded./
Internet, through the exchange in real time via social networks and
chats, has allowed the emergence of a spontaneous free and radical
protest movement by a generation that’s had enough…
The Internet has become a structural element of the movement. /What
is expressed is anger, a desire for radical change and a rejection
of all traditional forms of politics. Which explains the refusal to
be co-opted by any political party or trade union and calls to spoil
ballot cards or vote blank./ Confidence in the Spanish democratic
system is broken; the indignants have the impression that their
voices are never heard. The descent into the street came naturally,
as an extension. The street is also where they want to be heard.
Many observers see the protests in Spain as a continuation of the May
Day demonstration earlier this year. Interestingly, the May Day
demonstration itself, according to Gemma Galdon Clavell
of
the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, was organized independently of
the mainstream political parties and trade unions and was ignored by the
media. The point is itself worth some serious thought for it clearly
indicates that even those formally bearing the legacy of the Left and
the workers’ movement, were clearly quite out of sync with large
sections of the youth who also aligned themselves to the legacy of the
Left through the May Day demonstration. That is why the entire
atmosphere in these protests was said to be permeated by an
anti-politics sentiment and with a contempt for all political parties.
Once the movement acquired the form of a huge mass movement, obviously
things must have changed further. No longer would the movement have
consisted only of left-wing supporters of the workers’ struggles. People
with different political/ ideological inclinations, people with no
particular political preferences, all started joining into this mass of
‘the indignant’. The manifesto of Real Democracy Now emphasized this
apparently nonpolitical character of the movement when it underlined
something to the effect that ‘we are believers and nonbelievers, we have
different political convictions but the thing that unites us is that we
are angry at economic the state of affairs’.
*The Arab Virus*
What we see playing out here in Spain and Greece is not simply an
aberration. The resonances of the struggles in the Arab world are very
obvious and widely acknowledged. Activist-organizer Beatriz Pérez, 29,
underlines: ‘Egypt and Tunisia was a very important catalyst for the
movement in Spain’, which constituted an inspiration and a trigger,
apart from inspiration of the recent student demonstrations in the UK. A
report in Hurriyat Daily News
,
recently recalled its own speculations sometime ago, about the
possibility of the North African and Middle Eastern revolution engulfing
Europe – a possibility that it now saw becoming a reality. The
resonances however, are not simply limited to the fact that the Internet
and Facebook etc became the major vehicles of organizing the protests.
These similarities are in fact linked to some other quite significant
issues – those that pertain to the ‘implosion of the political’.
Throughout the Arab world, this was in a very different context,
precisely the situation of the formal domain of politics. Political
parties lay at the feet of the establishment or had reduced themselves
to complete inefficacy. In country after country across North Africa and
West Asia, we have seen people in their hundreds of thousands march at
the head and parties follow. The vanguards – Leninist and non-Leninist –
all reduced to the ultimate pathos of ineffective, closed sects in some
cases; or to political instruments in service of bankers and
corporations. In earlier times, there was no way of communicating
without the mediation of these organizations and their leaders. Things
have changed now and direct communication and discussion has become
possible through the Internet. A lot of discussion now happens there.
But the Arab revolutions also have a ‘spiritual’ effect over these
movements insofar as they are equally invested in the values of democracy.
Thus Dick Nichols of the Green Left Weekly
, reports from Barcelona:
The central plazas of dozens of cities and towns across Spain bear
an uncanny resemblance to Tahrir Square in Cairo. They have been
taken over by thousands of demonstrators demanding a “new system”.
As of May 29, dozens of other central plazas in Spanish cities and
towns look the same — taken over by thousands of ordinary people
demanding “a new system.
As speculations mount about Greece defaulting on its loan repayment from
the IMF, the pressure has been building up on the government from
international financial and corporate circles. In earlier times, such
pressure would have worked and all political parties, seduced by the
logic of neo-liberalism would have fallen in line. Not any more. It is
clear here, to ordinary people as well, that if austerity measures a put
in place after the debt is repaid, that will lead to further cuts in
salaries and pension and result in further increase in unemployment and
homelessness. That is no longer acceptable. And as the Hurriyat report
underlines, if Greece defaults, that will not be the end of the story;
it will most certainly be followed by Portugal, Ireland and Spain – with
Italy not very far behind.
Here too, the link with the Arab revolts is quite obvious – though the
issues may not be quite the same. But whatever the differences between
the European and the Arab situation, one thing is quite clear: the
question of livelihoods is central here and the fact that increasingly
decisions about peoples’ lives are being taken away from their hands and
manipulated in the name of some abstract notions of well-being which
ultimately amount to the enrichment of some at the cost of vast
majorities of populations.
*Democracy in Practice*
There is no doubt that none of the great movements sweeping the world in
this part of the twenty-first century has any attachment to or any
fixation with a programme. On the contrary, it cares two hoots about
those who have. For those who have made programmes behind closed doors
and do not want them to be discussed democratically, there is nothing
but contempt in these movements. Yes, they do want to transform things
but the critical question here is, rather than capture power and start
mimicking the erstwhile powerful, one of creating new ground rules. The
critical thing is to enunciate a different political practice so that
whoever comes to power – the bourgeois or his Leninist mimic – will all
have to be governed by those new ground rules. Not revolutionary? So be
it. That is the fantasy of revolutionaries, not of the masses. It never
was. Meanwhile, Puerta del Sol has been converted into a huge popular
assembly where policies are being debated. Different commissions are
drawing out policy proposals that are then discussed in the assembly,
which has itself become a huge training camp, in between fighting street
battles with government forces. Here is a glimpse from the /New
Statesman/ report:
The protesters at Puerta del Sol are interested only in action, not
rhetoric. In the square, they built a makeshift campsite, including
everything from a children’s nursery and a library to a kitchen
offering free food donated by local businesses.
In the space of a few days they had created separate working
commissions to form proposals for change to current government
policy. A social and migration commission would look at immigration
policy, the health commission would focus on how to deprivatise
health-care services. Other commissions were formed to handle
politics, education, the economy and the environment.
Among the camp’s immediate demands were calls for electoral reform,
the dissolution of the Spanish parliament’s second chamber, and an
end to a much-despised policy of “salaries for life” for politicians.
The movement itself has no single leader or figurehead; all
decisions are made by consensus at general assemblies, held twice
daily. Hundreds, sometimes thousands, attend the meetings, and no
decision is taken until every single person is in agreement.
The meetings are long and laborious – occasionally lasting more than
four hours at a time – but seem so far to have been successful.
Do you get a whiff of anti-Leninist, anti-vanguardist, anarchism? How
can the people ever discuss and decide! They can and they do. Maybe that
is where the twenty-first century will reverse the perversions of the
twentieth.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
-------------- 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
From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 09:17:16 2011
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 14:17:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Fwd=3A_The_=91Viral=92_Revoluti?=
=?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ons_Spread_Across_Europe?=
In-Reply-To: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:
Perhaps NATO will send in the planes to defend civilians from the brutality
of the Spanish security forces? Some no-fly zones? Set up an opposition
government for the Basques in the Basque Country?
Rui
2011/6/2 parminder
> Hi All
>
> The article below from India gives a southern view of the current political
> impacts of the internet and the deeper politics behind it.
>
> Important to notice how the key issue here was economic but it turned into
> a demand for political change and new practices of 'real democracy'. We dont
> necessarily have an alternative model here, but it is such new institutional
> possibilities of participatory democracy that may have become available
> today that are exciting and must be explored. Regret to say, the simplistic
> notions (involving co-option) of multistakeholderism that we hear so much
> about as the next political system is not at all the right direction. In
> fact, in the form it mostly gets spoken of and practised in IG arena, it is
> very much the wrong direction. Parminder
>
> http://kafila.org/2011/05/30/the-viral-revolutions-spread-across-europe/
>
> The ‘Viral’ Revolutions Spread Across Europe
> May 30, 2011
> tags: austerity measures,
> democracy , Greece protests,
> Indignants , Spain
> by Aditya Nigam
>
> *The New Democratic Upsurges*
>
> The mainstream Western media that celebrated the democracy movements in the
> Arab world not very long back, is relatively silent now. For, then it was
> the Arab youth’s striving for the ‘western values’ of democracy that it was
> celebrating. Now that the cry of ‘democracy’ is arising from its very midst,
> it does not seem to quite know what to do. From May 15 on, for almost two
> weeks Madrid and other Spanish cities have been witnessing some of the
> largest demonstrations in recent memory. Protesters have thronged the Puerta
> del Sol, virtually camping there. As government forces started cracking
> down, demonstrations began to grow in an ever expanding scale spreading to
> many other Spanish cities. When the government moved to ban demonstrations
> on May 20, in the run up to the regional and municipal elections, the
> protests acquired an even more militant form. A ‘snapshot’ of the rallies in
> defiance of the ban:
>
> The initial protests against the planned multibillion euro bailout plan for
> banks, austerity measures and against high unemployment almost 45 percent
> among the youth), according to reports, were not very large but when the
> government responded by arresting several activists and demonstrators,
> things started going out of hand. That was the ‘spark that lit the prairie
> fire’. As Ryan Gallagher’s report in
> the *New Statesman*put it:
>
> A demonstration against the arrests was organised in the city’s main
> square, Puerta del Sol, and numbers soon snowballed when word got out over
> the internet. What began as a group of fewer than a hundred activists
> reached an estimated 50,000 within less than six days.
>
> The protesters whose arrests had sparked the initial demonstration were
> released and immediately returned to the square. By the time they arrived,
> the demonstration was no longer just about their treatment at the hands of
> the police. It was about government corruption, lack of media freedom, bank
> bailouts, unemployment, austerity measures and privatisation.
>
> Here is another video of a fierce battle being fought on the streets of
> Madrid:
>
> According to a report in Der Speigel
> ,
>
> The protesters have occupied the square for days now, with some comparing
> the gatherings to those that took place on Cairo’s Tahrir Square earlier
> this year, and demonstrations also continued for the fifth day in a row on
> Thursday in Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao and Santiago de Compostela.
> Spaniards living abroad have also set up protest camps outside the country’s
> embassies in Berlin, Paris, London and Amsterdam. Most of the events have
> been organized online. After organizing demonstrations in around 50 cities
> last Sunday, the Real Democracy Now (the name of the movement that
> coordinates the Spanish struggle – AN) movement became a household name
> virtually overnight.
>
> By the end of May, the movement had now spread to Greece where, for the
> fifth consecutive day yesterday, an estimated 100, 000 people were
> demonstrating at the Syntagma square in Athens. Below the parliament
> building they stood, chanting ‘thieves’, ‘thieves’ and carrying placards
> that said ‘Poverty is the greatest abuse’. Initially calling themselves the
> ‘indignants’, the protesters in both Spain and Greece gradually coalesced
> into this loose federation with a website and a Facebook page by the name of
> Real Democracy Now (see their Manifesto in English translation here)
> that rapidly had over three and a half lakh members signing up. And
> virtually in tandem with the Spanish movement’s call for ‘real democracy’,
> the Greek movement too has transformed the struggle against austerity and
> bailout measures into *a struggle for a changing the political system
> itself, into a struggle for radicalizing democracy*.
> [image: Athens demonstrations]
>
> Athens Syntagma square, image courtesy Greek Reporter
>
> *The Question of ‘Politics’*
>
> This mutation of the essentially ‘economic’ struggle against the bailout
> plans and austerity measures into a political struggle for the
> transformation of the very terrain of democracy tells us something serious
> about the relationship of traditional forms and institutions of politics and
> their growing conflict with popular aspirations. The call for ‘real
> democracy’ comes in a context where the political parties and the formal
> political domain is being seen as highly corrupt and deeply implicated in
> the politics of predatory corporations and banks. By and large, not only
> political parties but often, even the unions have been bypassed by the mass
> mobilizations – an index of the relative redundancy of these structures of
> formal democratic politics. A report in the l’Humanité put
> it:
>
> *No trade union, let alone a political party. The workings of traditional
> dispute are outmoded, and even deliberately excluded.* Internet, through
> the exchange in real time via social networks and chats, has allowed the
> emergence of a spontaneous free and radical protest movement by a generation
> that’s had enough…
>
> The Internet has become a structural element of the movement. *What is
> expressed is anger, a desire for radical change and a rejection of all
> traditional forms of politics. Which explains the refusal to be co-opted by
> any political party or trade union and calls to spoil ballot cards or vote
> blank.* Confidence in the Spanish democratic system is broken; the
> indignants have the impression that their voices are never heard. The
> descent into the street came naturally, as an extension. The street is also
> where they want to be heard.
>
> Many observers see the protests in Spain as a continuation of the May Day
> demonstration earlier this year. Interestingly, the May Day demonstration
> itself, according to Gemma Galdon Clavell of
> the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, was organized independently of the
> mainstream political parties and trade unions and was ignored by the media.
> The point is itself worth some serious thought for it clearly indicates that
> even those formally bearing the legacy of the Left and the workers’
> movement, were clearly quite out of sync with large sections of the youth
> who also aligned themselves to the legacy of the Left through the May Day
> demonstration. That is why the entire atmosphere in these protests was said
> to be permeated by an anti-politics sentiment and with a contempt for all
> political parties. Once the movement acquired the form of a huge mass
> movement, obviously things must have changed further. No longer would the
> movement have consisted only of left-wing supporters of the workers’
> struggles. People with different political/ ideological inclinations, people
> with no particular political preferences, all started joining into this mass
> of ‘the indignant’. The manifesto of Real Democracy Now emphasized this
> apparently nonpolitical character of the movement when it underlined
> something to the effect that ‘we are believers and nonbelievers, we have
> different political convictions but the thing that unites us is that we are
> angry at economic the state of affairs’.
>
> *The Arab Virus*
>
> What we see playing out here in Spain and Greece is not simply an
> aberration. The resonances of the struggles in the Arab world are very
> obvious and widely acknowledged. Activist-organizer Beatriz Pérez, 29,
> underlines: ‘Egypt and Tunisia was a very important catalyst for the
> movement in Spain’, which constituted an inspiration and a trigger, apart
> from inspiration of the recent student demonstrations in the UK. A report
> in Hurriyat Daily News,
> recently recalled its own speculations sometime ago, about the possibility
> of the North African and Middle Eastern revolution engulfing Europe – a
> possibility that it now saw becoming a reality. The resonances however, are
> not simply limited to the fact that the Internet and Facebook etc became the
> major vehicles of organizing the protests. These similarities are in fact
> linked to some other quite significant issues – those that pertain to the
> ‘implosion of the political’. Throughout the Arab world, this was in a very
> different context, precisely the situation of the formal domain of politics.
> Political parties lay at the feet of the establishment or had reduced
> themselves to complete inefficacy. In country after country across North
> Africa and West Asia, we have seen people in their hundreds of thousands
> march at the head and parties follow. The vanguards – Leninist and
> non-Leninist – all reduced to the ultimate pathos of ineffective, closed
> sects in some cases; or to political instruments in service of bankers and
> corporations. In earlier times, there was no way of communicating without
> the mediation of these organizations and their leaders. Things have changed
> now and direct communication and discussion has become possible through the
> Internet. A lot of discussion now happens there. But the Arab revolutions
> also have a ‘spiritual’ effect over these movements insofar as they are
> equally invested in the values of democracy.
>
> Thus Dick Nichols of the Green Left Weekly,
> reports from Barcelona:
>
> The central plazas of dozens of cities and towns across Spain bear an
> uncanny resemblance to Tahrir Square in Cairo. They have been taken over by
> thousands of demonstrators demanding a “new system”. As of May 29, dozens of
> other central plazas in Spanish cities and towns look the same — taken over
> by thousands of ordinary people demanding “a new system.
>
> As speculations mount about Greece defaulting on its loan repayment from
> the IMF, the pressure has been building up on the government from
> international financial and corporate circles. In earlier times, such
> pressure would have worked and all political parties, seduced by the logic
> of neo-liberalism would have fallen in line. Not any more. It is clear here,
> to ordinary people as well, that if austerity measures a put in place after
> the debt is repaid, that will lead to further cuts in salaries and pension
> and result in further increase in unemployment and homelessness. That is no
> longer acceptable. And as the Hurriyat report underlines, if Greece
> defaults, that will not be the end of the story; it will most certainly be
> followed by Portugal, Ireland and Spain – with Italy not very far behind.
>
> Here too, the link with the Arab revolts is quite obvious – though the
> issues may not be quite the same. But whatever the differences between the
> European and the Arab situation, one thing is quite clear: the question of
> livelihoods is central here and the fact that increasingly decisions about
> peoples’ lives are being taken away from their hands and manipulated in the
> name of some abstract notions of well-being which ultimately amount to the
> enrichment of some at the cost of vast majorities of populations.
>
> *Democracy in Practice*
>
> There is no doubt that none of the great movements sweeping the world in
> this part of the twenty-first century has any attachment to or any fixation
> with a programme. On the contrary, it cares two hoots about those who have.
> For those who have made programmes behind closed doors and do not want them
> to be discussed democratically, there is nothing but contempt in these
> movements. Yes, they do want to transform things but the critical question
> here is, rather than capture power and start mimicking the erstwhile
> powerful, one of creating new ground rules. The critical thing is to
> enunciate a different political practice so that whoever comes to power –
> the bourgeois or his Leninist mimic – will all have to be governed by those
> new ground rules. Not revolutionary? So be it. That is the fantasy of
> revolutionaries, not of the masses. It never was. Meanwhile, Puerta del Sol
> has been converted into a huge popular assembly where policies are being
> debated. Different commissions are drawing out policy proposals that are
> then discussed in the assembly, which has itself become a huge training
> camp, in between fighting street battles with government forces. Here is a
> glimpse from the *New Statesman* report:
>
> The protesters at Puerta del Sol are interested only in action, not
> rhetoric. In the square, they built a makeshift campsite, including
> everything from a children’s nursery and a library to a kitchen offering
> free food donated by local businesses.
>
> In the space of a few days they had created separate working commissions to
> form proposals for change to current government policy. A social and
> migration commission would look at immigration policy, the health commission
> would focus on how to deprivatise health-care services. Other commissions
> were formed to handle politics, education, the economy and the environment.
>
> Among the camp’s immediate demands were calls for electoral reform, the
> dissolution of the Spanish parliament’s second chamber, and an end to a
> much-despised policy of “salaries for life” for politicians.
>
> The movement itself has no single leader or figurehead; all decisions are
> made by consensus at general assemblies, held twice daily. Hundreds,
> sometimes thousands, attend the meetings, and no decision is taken until
> every single person is in agreement.
>
> The meetings are long and laborious – occasionally lasting more than four
> hours at a time – but seem so far to have been successful.
>
> Do you get a whiff of anti-Leninist, anti-vanguardist, anarchism? How can
> the people ever discuss and decide! They can and they do. Maybe that is
> where the twenty-first century will reverse the perversions of the
> twentieth.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
--
_________________________
Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308
Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308
I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African
numbers
Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos
meus números sul-africanos
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
Angola Liaison Consultant
_______________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
-------------- 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
From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 12:07:48 2011
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 18:07:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Fwd=3A_The_=91Viral=92_Revoluti?=
=?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ons_Spread_Across_Europe?=
In-Reply-To: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:
Dear Parminder,
Thanks for sharing the article.
Two points on your remarks:
- fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory
democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;
- I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the current
modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do deserve attention
(such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors, the north-south
unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented); however, what I am
missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very much the wrong direction
*") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as they are, aren't the
experiences currently under way presenting more potential for broad
participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use your formulation)
than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ?
In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different from
what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify
thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
Best
Bertrand
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:43 PM, parminder wrote:
> Hi All
>
> The article below from India gives a southern view of the current political
> impacts of the internet and the deeper politics behind it.
>
> Important to notice how the key issue here was economic but it turned into
> a demand for political change and new practices of 'real democracy'. We dont
> necessarily have an alternative model here, but it is such new institutional
> possibilities of participatory democracy that may have become available
> today that are exciting and must be explored. Regret to say, the simplistic
> notions (involving co-option) of multistakeholderism that we hear so much
> about as the next political system is not at all the right direction. In
> fact, in the form it mostly gets spoken of and practised in IG arena, it is
> very much the wrong direction. Parminder
>
> http://kafila.org/2011/05/30/the-viral-revolutions-spread-across-europe/
>
> The ‘Viral’ Revolutions Spread Across Europe
> May 30, 2011
> tags: austerity measures,
> democracy , Greece protests,
> Indignants , Spain
> by Aditya Nigam
>
> *The New Democratic Upsurges*
>
> The mainstream Western media that celebrated the democracy movements in the
> Arab world not very long back, is relatively silent now. For, then it was
> the Arab youth’s striving for the ‘western values’ of democracy that it was
> celebrating. Now that the cry of ‘democracy’ is arising from its very midst,
> it does not seem to quite know what to do. From May 15 on, for almost two
> weeks Madrid and other Spanish cities have been witnessing some of the
> largest demonstrations in recent memory. Protesters have thronged the Puerta
> del Sol, virtually camping there. As government forces started cracking
> down, demonstrations began to grow in an ever expanding scale spreading to
> many other Spanish cities. When the government moved to ban demonstrations
> on May 20, in the run up to the regional and municipal elections, the
> protests acquired an even more militant form. A ‘snapshot’ of the rallies in
> defiance of the ban:
>
> The initial protests against the planned multibillion euro bailout plan for
> banks, austerity measures and against high unemployment almost 45 percent
> among the youth), according to reports, were not very large but when the
> government responded by arresting several activists and demonstrators,
> things started going out of hand. That was the ‘spark that lit the prairie
> fire’. As Ryan Gallagher’s report in
> the *New Statesman*put it:
>
> A demonstration against the arrests was organised in the city’s main
> square, Puerta del Sol, and numbers soon snowballed when word got out over
> the internet. What began as a group of fewer than a hundred activists
> reached an estimated 50,000 within less than six days.
>
> The protesters whose arrests had sparked the initial demonstration were
> released and immediately returned to the square. By the time they arrived,
> the demonstration was no longer just about their treatment at the hands of
> the police. It was about government corruption, lack of media freedom, bank
> bailouts, unemployment, austerity measures and privatisation.
>
> Here is another video of a fierce battle being fought on the streets of
> Madrid:
>
> According to a report in Der Speigel
> ,
>
> The protesters have occupied the square for days now, with some comparing
> the gatherings to those that took place on Cairo’s Tahrir Square earlier
> this year, and demonstrations also continued for the fifth day in a row on
> Thursday in Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao and Santiago de Compostela.
> Spaniards living abroad have also set up protest camps outside the country’s
> embassies in Berlin, Paris, London and Amsterdam. Most of the events have
> been organized online. After organizing demonstrations in around 50 cities
> last Sunday, the Real Democracy Now (the name of the movement that
> coordinates the Spanish struggle – AN) movement became a household name
> virtually overnight.
>
> By the end of May, the movement had now spread to Greece where, for the
> fifth consecutive day yesterday, an estimated 100, 000 people were
> demonstrating at the Syntagma square in Athens. Below the parliament
> building they stood, chanting ‘thieves’, ‘thieves’ and carrying placards
> that said ‘Poverty is the greatest abuse’. Initially calling themselves the
> ‘indignants’, the protesters in both Spain and Greece gradually coalesced
> into this loose federation with a website and a Facebook page by the name of
> Real Democracy Now (see their Manifesto in English translation here)
> that rapidly had over three and a half lakh members signing up. And
> virtually in tandem with the Spanish movement’s call for ‘real democracy’,
> the Greek movement too has transformed the struggle against austerity and
> bailout measures into *a struggle for a changing the political system
> itself, into a struggle for radicalizing democracy*.
> [image: Athens demonstrations]
>
> Athens Syntagma square, image courtesy Greek Reporter
>
> *The Question of ‘Politics’*
>
> This mutation of the essentially ‘economic’ struggle against the bailout
> plans and austerity measures into a political struggle for the
> transformation of the very terrain of democracy tells us something serious
> about the relationship of traditional forms and institutions of politics and
> their growing conflict with popular aspirations. The call for ‘real
> democracy’ comes in a context where the political parties and the formal
> political domain is being seen as highly corrupt and deeply implicated in
> the politics of predatory corporations and banks. By and large, not only
> political parties but often, even the unions have been bypassed by the mass
> mobilizations – an index of the relative redundancy of these structures of
> formal democratic politics. A report in the l’Humanité put
> it:
>
> *No trade union, let alone a political party. The workings of traditional
> dispute are outmoded, and even deliberately excluded.* Internet, through
> the exchange in real time via social networks and chats, has allowed the
> emergence of a spontaneous free and radical protest movement by a generation
> that’s had enough…
>
> The Internet has become a structural element of the movement. *What is
> expressed is anger, a desire for radical change and a rejection of all
> traditional forms of politics. Which explains the refusal to be co-opted by
> any political party or trade union and calls to spoil ballot cards or vote
> blank.* Confidence in the Spanish democratic system is broken; the
> indignants have the impression that their voices are never heard. The
> descent into the street came naturally, as an extension. The street is also
> where they want to be heard.
>
> Many observers see the protests in Spain as a continuation of the May Day
> demonstration earlier this year. Interestingly, the May Day demonstration
> itself, according to Gemma Galdon Clavell of
> the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, was organized independently of the
> mainstream political parties and trade unions and was ignored by the media.
> The point is itself worth some serious thought for it clearly indicates that
> even those formally bearing the legacy of the Left and the workers’
> movement, were clearly quite out of sync with large sections of the youth
> who also aligned themselves to the legacy of the Left through the May Day
> demonstration. That is why the entire atmosphere in these protests was said
> to be permeated by an anti-politics sentiment and with a contempt for all
> political parties. Once the movement acquired the form of a huge mass
> movement, obviously things must have changed further. No longer would the
> movement have consisted only of left-wing supporters of the workers’
> struggles. People with different political/ ideological inclinations, people
> with no particular political preferences, all started joining into this mass
> of ‘the indignant’. The manifesto of Real Democracy Now emphasized this
> apparently nonpolitical character of the movement when it underlined
> something to the effect that ‘we are believers and nonbelievers, we have
> different political convictions but the thing that unites us is that we are
> angry at economic the state of affairs’.
>
> *The Arab Virus*
>
> What we see playing out here in Spain and Greece is not simply an
> aberration. The resonances of the struggles in the Arab world are very
> obvious and widely acknowledged. Activist-organizer Beatriz Pérez, 29,
> underlines: ‘Egypt and Tunisia was a very important catalyst for the
> movement in Spain’, which constituted an inspiration and a trigger, apart
> from inspiration of the recent student demonstrations in the UK. A report
> in Hurriyat Daily News,
> recently recalled its own speculations sometime ago, about the possibility
> of the North African and Middle Eastern revolution engulfing Europe – a
> possibility that it now saw becoming a reality. The resonances however, are
> not simply limited to the fact that the Internet and Facebook etc became the
> major vehicles of organizing the protests. These similarities are in fact
> linked to some other quite significant issues – those that pertain to the
> ‘implosion of the political’. Throughout the Arab world, this was in a very
> different context, precisely the situation of the formal domain of politics.
> Political parties lay at the feet of the establishment or had reduced
> themselves to complete inefficacy. In country after country across North
> Africa and West Asia, we have seen people in their hundreds of thousands
> march at the head and parties follow. The vanguards – Leninist and
> non-Leninist – all reduced to the ultimate pathos of ineffective, closed
> sects in some cases; or to political instruments in service of bankers and
> corporations. In earlier times, there was no way of communicating without
> the mediation of these organizations and their leaders. Things have changed
> now and direct communication and discussion has become possible through the
> Internet. A lot of discussion now happens there. But the Arab revolutions
> also have a ‘spiritual’ effect over these movements insofar as they are
> equally invested in the values of democracy.
>
> Thus Dick Nichols of the Green Left Weekly,
> reports from Barcelona:
>
> The central plazas of dozens of cities and towns across Spain bear an
> uncanny resemblance to Tahrir Square in Cairo. They have been taken over by
> thousands of demonstrators demanding a “new system”. As of May 29, dozens of
> other central plazas in Spanish cities and towns look the same — taken over
> by thousands of ordinary people demanding “a new system.
>
> As speculations mount about Greece defaulting on its loan repayment from
> the IMF, the pressure has been building up on the government from
> international financial and corporate circles. In earlier times, such
> pressure would have worked and all political parties, seduced by the logic
> of neo-liberalism would have fallen in line. Not any more. It is clear here,
> to ordinary people as well, that if austerity measures a put in place after
> the debt is repaid, that will lead to further cuts in salaries and pension
> and result in further increase in unemployment and homelessness. That is no
> longer acceptable. And as the Hurriyat report underlines, if Greece
> defaults, that will not be the end of the story; it will most certainly be
> followed by Portugal, Ireland and Spain – with Italy not very far behind.
>
> Here too, the link with the Arab revolts is quite obvious – though the
> issues may not be quite the same. But whatever the differences between the
> European and the Arab situation, one thing is quite clear: the question of
> livelihoods is central here and the fact that increasingly decisions about
> peoples’ lives are being taken away from their hands and manipulated in the
> name of some abstract notions of well-being which ultimately amount to the
> enrichment of some at the cost of vast majorities of populations.
>
> *Democracy in Practice*
>
> There is no doubt that none of the great movements sweeping the world in
> this part of the twenty-first century has any attachment to or any fixation
> with a programme. On the contrary, it cares two hoots about those who have.
> For those who have made programmes behind closed doors and do not want them
> to be discussed democratically, there is nothing but contempt in these
> movements. Yes, they do want to transform things but the critical question
> here is, rather than capture power and start mimicking the erstwhile
> powerful, one of creating new ground rules. The critical thing is to
> enunciate a different political practice so that whoever comes to power –
> the bourgeois or his Leninist mimic – will all have to be governed by those
> new ground rules. Not revolutionary? So be it. That is the fantasy of
> revolutionaries, not of the masses. It never was. Meanwhile, Puerta del Sol
> has been converted into a huge popular assembly where policies are being
> debated. Different commissions are drawing out policy proposals that are
> then discussed in the assembly, which has itself become a huge training
> camp, in between fighting street battles with government forces. Here is a
> glimpse from the *New Statesman* report:
>
> The protesters at Puerta del Sol are interested only in action, not
> rhetoric. In the square, they built a makeshift campsite, including
> everything from a children’s nursery and a library to a kitchen offering
> free food donated by local businesses.
>
> In the space of a few days they had created separate working commissions to
> form proposals for change to current government policy. A social and
> migration commission would look at immigration policy, the health commission
> would focus on how to deprivatise health-care services. Other commissions
> were formed to handle politics, education, the economy and the environment.
>
> Among the camp’s immediate demands were calls for electoral reform, the
> dissolution of the Spanish parliament’s second chamber, and an end to a
> much-despised policy of “salaries for life” for politicians.
>
> The movement itself has no single leader or figurehead; all decisions are
> made by consensus at general assemblies, held twice daily. Hundreds,
> sometimes thousands, attend the meetings, and no decision is taken until
> every single person is in agreement.
>
> The meetings are long and laborious – occasionally lasting more than four
> hours at a time – but seem so far to have been successful.
>
> Do you get a whiff of anti-Leninist, anti-vanguardist, anarchism? How can
> the people ever discuss and decide! They can and they do. Maybe that is
> where the twenty-first century will reverse the perversions of the
> twentieth.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
--
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
-------------- 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
From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Jun 2 12:40:12 2011
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 18:40:12 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_The_=E2=80=98Viral=E2=80=99_Rev?=
=?UTF-8?Q?olutions_Spread_Across_Europe?=
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <418165865.36287.1307032812410.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m11>
buenos dias, Rui
I guess there is already a rebel (catalan) government in Barcelona ... (:-). Possibly your hypothesis could lead to rebel-rebel conflicts : a nightmare for the NATO ....
Jean-Louis Fullsack
> Message du 02/06/11 15:19
> De : "Rui Correia"
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "parminder"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [governance] Fwd: The ‘Viral’ Revolutions Spread Across Europe
>
> Perhaps NATO will send in the planes to defend civilians from the brutality of the Spanish security forces? Some no-fly zones? Set up an opposition government for the Basques in the Basque Country?
>
> Rui
>
> 2011/6/2 parminder
> Hi All
>
> The article below from India gives a southern view of the current political impacts of the internet and the deeper politics behind it.
>
> Important to notice how the key issue here was economic but it turned into a demand for political change and new practices of 'real democracy'. We dont necessarily have an alternative model here, but it is such new institutional possibilities of participatory democracy that may have become available today that are exciting and must be explored. Regret to say, the simplistic notions (involving co-option) of multistakeholderism that we hear so much about as the next political system is not at all the right direction. In fact, in the form it mostly gets spoken of and practised in IG arena, it is very much the wrong direction. Parminder
>
> http://kafila.org/2011/05/30/the-viral-revolutions-spread-across-europe/
>
> The ‘Viral’ Revolutions Spread Across Europe May 30, 2011 tags: austerity measures, democracy, Greece protests, Indignants, Spain by Aditya Nigam > The New Democratic Upsurges
> The mainstream Western media that celebrated the democracy movements in the Arab world not very long back, is relatively silent now. For, then it was the Arab youth’s striving for the ‘western values’ of democracy that it was celebrating. Now that the cry of ‘democracy’ is arising from its very midst, it does not seem to quite know what to do. From May 15 on, for almost two weeks Madrid and other Spanish cities have been witnessing some of the largest demonstrations in recent memory. Protesters have thronged the Puerta del Sol, virtually camping there. As government forces started cracking down, demonstrations began to grow in an ever expanding scale spreading to many other Spanish cities. When the government moved to ban demonstrations on May 20, in the run up to the regional and municipal elections, the protests acquired an even more militant form. A ‘snapshot’ of the rallies in defiance of the ban:
> The initial protests against the planned multibillion euro bailout plan for banks, austerity measures and against high unemployment almost 45 percent among the youth), according to reports, were not very large but when the government responded by arresting several activists and demonstrators, things started going out of hand. That was the ‘spark that lit the prairie fire’. As Ryan Gallagher’s report in the New Statesmanput it:
> A demonstration against the arrests was organised in the city’s main square, Puerta del Sol, and numbers soon snowballed when word got out over the internet. What began as a group of fewer than a hundred activists reached an estimated 50,000 within less than six days.
> The protesters whose arrests had sparked the initial demonstration were released and immediately returned to the square. By the time they arrived, the demonstration was no longer just about their treatment at the hands of the police. It was about government corruption, lack of media freedom, bank bailouts, unemployment, austerity measures and privatisation.
> Here is another video of a fierce battle being fought on the streets of Madrid:
> According to a report in Der Speigel,
> The protesters have occupied the square for days now, with some comparing the gatherings to those that took place on Cairo’s Tahrir Square earlier this year, and demonstrations also continued for the fifth day in a row on Thursday in Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao and Santiago de Compostela. Spaniards living abroad have also set up protest camps outside the country’s embassies in Berlin, Paris, London and Amsterdam. Most of the events have been organized online. After organizing demonstrations in around 50 cities last Sunday, the Real Democracy Now (the name of the movement that coordinates the Spanish struggle – AN) movement became a household name virtually overnight.
> By the end of May, the movement had now spread to Greece where, for the fifth consecutive day yesterday, an estimated 100, 000 people were demonstrating at the Syntagma square in Athens. Below the parliament building they stood, chanting ‘thieves’, ‘thieves’ and carrying placards that said ‘Poverty is the greatest abuse’. Initially calling themselves the ‘indignants’, the protesters in both Spain and Greece gradually coalesced into this loose federation with a website and a Facebook page by the name of Real Democracy Now (see their Manifesto in English translation here) that rapidly had over three and a half lakh members signing up. And virtually in tandem with the Spanish movement’s call for ‘real democracy’, the Greek movement too has transformed the struggle against austerity and bailout measures into a struggle for a changing the political system itself, into a struggle for radicalizing democracy.
> Athens Syntagma square, image courtesy Greek Reporter
> The Question of ‘Politics’
> This mutation of the essentially ‘economic’ struggle against the bailout plans and austerity measures into a political struggle for the transformation of the very terrain of democracy tells us something serious about the relationship of traditional forms and institutions of politics and their growing conflict with popular aspirations. The call for ‘real democracy’ comes in a context where the political parties and the formal political domain is being seen as highly corrupt and deeply implicated in the politics of predatory corporations and banks. By and large, not only political parties but often, even the unions have been bypassed by the mass mobilizations – an index of the relative redundancy of these structures of formal democratic politics. A report in the l’Humanité put it:
> No trade union, let alone a political party. The workings of traditional dispute are outmoded, and even deliberately excluded. Internet, through the exchange in real time via social networks and chats, has allowed the emergence of a spontaneous free and radical protest movement by a generation that’s had enough…
> The Internet has become a structural element of the movement. What is expressed is anger, a desire for radical change and a rejection of all traditional forms of politics. Which explains the refusal to be co-opted by any political party or trade union and calls to spoil ballot cards or vote blank. Confidence in the Spanish democratic system is broken; the indignants have the impression that their voices are never heard. The descent into the street came naturally, as an extension. The street is also where they want to be heard.
> Many observers see the protests in Spain as a continuation of the May Day demonstration earlier this year. Interestingly, the May Day demonstration itself, according to Gemma Galdon Clavell of the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, was organized independently of the mainstream political parties and trade unions and was ignored by the media. The point is itself worth some serious thought for it clearly indicates that even those formally bearing the legacy of the Left and the workers’ movement, were clearly quite out of sync with large sections of the youth who also aligned themselves to the legacy of the Left through the May Day demonstration. That is why the entire atmosphere in these protests was said to be permeated by an anti-politics sentiment and with a contempt for all political parties. Once the movement acquired the form of a huge mass movement, obviously things must have changed further. No longer would the movement have consisted only of left-wing supporters of the workers’ struggles. People with different political/ ideological inclinations, people with no particular political preferences, all started joining into this mass of ‘the indignant’. The manifesto of Real Democracy Now emphasized this apparently nonpolitical character of the movement when it underlined something to the effect that ‘we are believers and nonbelievers, we have different political convictions but the thing that unites us is that we are angry at economic the state of affairs’.
> The Arab Virus
> What we see playing out here in Spain and Greece is not simply an aberration. The resonances of the struggles in the Arab world are very obvious and widely acknowledged. Activist-organizer Beatriz Pérez, 29, underlines: ‘Egypt and Tunisia was a very important catalyst for the movement in Spain’, which constituted an inspiration and a trigger, apart from inspiration of the recent student demonstrations in the UK. A report in Hurriyat Daily News, recently recalled its own speculations sometime ago, about the possibility of the North African and Middle Eastern revolution engulfing Europe – a possibility that it now saw becoming a reality. The resonances however, are not simply limited to the fact that the Internet and Facebook etc became the major vehicles of organizing the protests. These similarities are in fact linked to some other quite significant issues – those that pertain to the ‘implosion of the political’. Throughout the Arab world, this was in a very different context, precisely the situation of the formal domain of politics. Political parties lay at the feet of the establishment or had reduced themselves to complete inefficacy. In country after country across North Africa and West Asia, we have seen people in their hundreds of thousands march at the head and parties follow. The vanguards – Leninist and non-Leninist – all reduced to the ultimate pathos of ineffective, closed sects in some cases; or to political instruments in service of bankers and corporations. In earlier times, there was no way of communicating without the mediation of these organizations and their leaders. Things have changed now and direct communication and discussion has become possible through the Internet. A lot of discussion now happens there. But the Arab revolutions also have a ‘spiritual’ effect over these movements insofar as they are equally invested in the values of democracy.
> Thus Dick Nichols of the Green Left Weekly, reports from Barcelona:
> The central plazas of dozens of cities and towns across Spain bear an uncanny resemblance to Tahrir Square in Cairo. They have been taken over by thousands of demonstrators demanding a “new system”. As of May 29, dozens of other central plazas in Spanish cities and towns look the same — taken over by thousands of ordinary people demanding “a new system.
> As speculations mount about Greece defaulting on its loan repayment from the IMF, the pressure has been building up on the government from international financial and corporate circles. In earlier times, such pressure would have worked and all political parties, seduced by the logic of neo-liberalism would have fallen in line. Not any more. It is clear here, to ordinary people as well, that if austerity measures a put in place after the debt is repaid, that will lead to further cuts in salaries and pension and result in further increase in unemployment and homelessness. That is no longer acceptable. And as the Hurriyat report underlines, if Greece defaults, that will not be the end of the story; it will most certainly be followed by Portugal, Ireland and Spain – with Italy not very far behind.
> Here too, the link with the Arab revolts is quite obvious – though the issues may not be quite the same. But whatever the differences between the European and the Arab situation, one thing is quite clear: the question of livelihoods is central here and the fact that increasingly decisions about peoples’ lives are being taken away from their hands and manipulated in the name of some abstract notions of well-being which ultimately amount to the enrichment of some at the cost of vast majorities of populations.
> Democracy in Practice
> There is no doubt that none of the great movements sweeping the world in this part of the twenty-first century has any attachment to or any fixation with a programme. On the contrary, it cares two hoots about those who have. For those who have made programmes behind closed doors and do not want them to be discussed democratically, there is nothing but contempt in these movements. Yes, they do want to transform things but the critical question here is, rather than capture power and start mimicking the erstwhile powerful, one of creating new ground rules. The critical thing is to enunciate a different political practice so that whoever comes to power – the bourgeois or his Leninist mimic – will all have to be governed by those new ground rules. Not revolutionary? So be it. That is the fantasy of revolutionaries, not of the masses. It never was. Meanwhile, Puerta del Sol has been converted into a huge popular assembly where policies are being debated. Different commissions are drawing out policy proposals that are then discussed in the assembly, which has itself become a huge training camp, in between fighting street battles with government forces. Here is a glimpse from the New Statesman report:
> The protesters at Puerta del Sol are interested only in action, not rhetoric. In the square, they built a makeshift campsite, including everything from a children’s nursery and a library to a kitchen offering free food donated by local businesses.
> In the space of a few days they had created separate working commissions to form proposals for change to current government policy. A social and migration commission would look at immigration policy, the health commission would focus on how to deprivatise health-care services. Other commissions were formed to handle politics, education, the economy and the environment.
> Among the camp’s immediate demands were calls for electoral reform, the dissolution of the Spanish parliament’s second chamber, and an end to a much-despised policy of “salaries for life” for politicians.
> The movement itself has no single leader or figurehead; all decisions are made by consensus at general assemblies, held twice daily. Hundreds, sometimes thousands, attend the meetings, and no decision is taken until every single person is in agreement.
> The meetings are long and laborious – occasionally lasting more than four hours at a time – but seem so far to have been successful.
> Do you get a whiff of anti-Leninist, anti-vanguardist, anarchism? How can the people ever discuss and decide! They can and they do. Maybe that is where the twenty-first century will reverse the perversions of the twentieth.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308
> Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308
>
> I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers
> Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos
>
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
> Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> _______________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
-------------- 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
From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jun 3 09:40:35 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 06:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Government licensing internet
In-Reply-To: <418165865.36287.1307032812410.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m11>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net> <418165865.36287.1307032812410.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m11>
Message-ID: <917994.86417.qm@web161012.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
I would like to share the following news regarding "Government licensing
internet- Not many are on the same boat with Scott Charney" for review comments.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.eworldpost.com/government-licensing-internet-not-many-are-on-the-same-boat-with-scott-charney-20688.html
“Government licensing internet” has recently been proposed by Scott Charney, the
security officer of Microsoft. This proposal was made at the conference held in
Berlin.
“Government licensing internet” has recently been proposed by Scott Charney, the
security officer of Microsoft. This proposal was made at the conference held in
Berlin.
Charney said if “government licensing internet” is initiated the government can
decide who can use the internet and who cannot. This will save people from
unsafe programs and malware. Charney further stated the “government licensing
internet” will be a global protection effort managed by the governments and the
companies. This will allow the government to organize and follow the computer
users. This will also enable the government to make the users aware of the
malware threat and the government will also be able to stop people from
spreading malwares.
----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
Imran Ahmed Shah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 3 09:47:04 2011
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 22:47:04 +0900
Subject: [governance] Government licensing internet
In-Reply-To: <917994.86417.qm@web161012.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<418165865.36287.1307032812410.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m11>
<917994.86417.qm@web161012.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID:
Much easier, govt should require Microsoft to
certify machines connected to the Internet
running Microsoft OS are free from unsafe
programs and malware. Industry self-regulation
not the hand of big govt (yeah, go tea-party :-))
Adam
>I would like to share the following news
>regarding "Government licensing internet- Not
>many are on the same boat with Scott Charney"
>for review comments.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.eworldpost.com/government-licensing-internet-not-many-are-on-the-same-boat-with-scott-charney-20688.html
>
>³Government licensing internet² has recently
>been proposed by Scott Charney, the security
>officer of Microsoft. This proposal was made at
>the conference held in Berlin.
>
>³Government licensing internet² has recently
>been proposed by Scott Charney, the security
>officer of Microsoft. This proposal was made at
>the conference held in Berlin.
>Charney said if ³government licensing internet²
>is initiated the government can decide who can
>use the internet and who cannot. This will save
>people from unsafe programs and malware. Charney
>further stated the ³government licensing
>internet² will be a global protection effort
>managed by the governments and the companies.
>This will allow the government to organize and
>follow the computer users. This will also enable
>the government to make the users aware of the
>malware threat and the government will also be
>able to stop people from spreading malwares.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thanks
>
>Imran Ahmed Shah
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
____________________________________________________________
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
From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jun 3 09:46:47 2011
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 06:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: Government licensing internet
Message-ID: <675693.68014.qm@web161007.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
some more coverage in the news:
http://www.infowars.com/microsoft-proposes-government-licensing-internet-access/
"State should have power to block individual computers from connecting to world
wide web, claims Charne"
It was posted in 2010, but it was discussed over here to and asked me to about
the policies and guidelines in the framework of Internet Governance.
Thanks
Imran
________________________________
From: Imran Ahmed Shah
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: "Imran @IGFPak.org"
Sent: Fri, 3 June, 2011 18:40:35
Subject: Government licensing internet
I would like to share the following news regarding "Government licensing
internet- Not many are on the same boat with Scott Charney" for review comments.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.eworldpost.com/government-licensing-internet-not-many-are-on-the-same-boat-with-scott-charney-20688.html
“Government licensing internet” has recently been proposed by Scott Charney, the
security officer of Microsoft. This proposal was made at the conference held in
Berlin.
“Government licensing internet” has recently been proposed by Scott Charney, the
security officer of Microsoft. This proposal was made at the conference held in
Berlin.
Charney said if “government licensing internet” is initiated the government can
decide who can use the internet and who cannot. This will save people from
unsafe programs and malware. Charney further stated the “government licensing
internet” will be a global protection effort managed by the governments and the
companies. This will allow the government to organize and follow the computer
users. This will also enable the government to make the users aware of the
malware threat and the government will also be able to stop people from
spreading malwares.
----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
Imran Ahmed Shah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From andersj at elon.edu Fri Jun 3 13:54:05 2011
From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson)
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:54:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] E-G8, organising for multiple forums
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD5AF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:
To the Internet Governance Caucus list: This article of interest about the
e-G8 is from Jeff Jarvis. I am copying this to Jeff - Jeff, you should
become involved in IGC and the processes of the Internet Governance Forum,
where we're trying to accomplish that of which you speak.
IGC link: http://www.igcaucus.org/
Link to some details from last global IGF:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/default.xhtml
Jeff's piece on the e-G8
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2011/06/03/e-g8-a-discussion-about-sovereignty/
e-G8: A discussion about sovereignty
I¹m coming to see last week¹s e-G8 meeting in Paris as a negotiation over
the sovereignty and future not only of the net but of government itself.
The e-G8 was government¹s opening volley against the internet as its agent
of disruption. Oh, yes, the gathering was positioned as exactly the
opposite: We come in peace, said Nicolas Sarkozy. After hearing him speak to
the thousand net, corporate, technology, and government machers he¹d
assembled in Tuileries tents, I tweeted that I felt like a native of the
Americas or Africa watching colonists¹ ships sail in, thinking, this can¹t
end well.
I rewatched Sarkozy¹s welcoming address and heard him alternately begging to
be invited to the cool kids¹ partyand warning them of trouble if he isn¹t.
³As long as the internet is part and parcel of the daily lives of our
citizens, it would be a contradiction to leave government out of this
massive discussion,² he said.
Then he asserted: ³No one should forget that governments in our democracies
are the only legitimate representatives of their citizens.² Really, Mr.
President? Tell that to the people of Tahrir Square. The citizens of Egypt
found their true voice apart from the government of their so-called
democracy. Spring is not only overtaking the Middle East. In Spain, too,
citizens are speaking for themselves, because they can. Where else will it
spread?
This was actually a discussion about sovereignty: governments¹ and the
net¹s. ³We want to tell you that the universe that you represent is not a
parallel universe that is free from the rules of law, or the ethics or any
of the fundamental principles that must govern the social lives our
democratic states,² Sarkozy told the tent. But is he right? Sarkozy acted as
if he were planting his flag in the soil of this new land. A few minutes
later (see transcript below) I called the net the eighth continent, an image
I heard from Peter Levin, CTO of the Department of Veterans Affairs and a
phrase the President liked.
The eighth continent metaphor is confusing, though, since everyone is a
citizen of some land but now anyone can also be a citizen of the net. It¹s
not as if we¹re all taking off for Plymouth Rock, leaving our native lands
behind. We do still live each in our own nation under its laws you¹re
right about that, Mr. President. Abusing children or stealing money is a
crime everywhere, no matter whether it occurs online.
But many of us net people have a new loyalty that inevitably undercuts
old, national authority. Before I¹m accused of being a net exceptionalist,
let me quickly say that the net is hardly the only factor in this modern
disruption of authority. Globalization may be the more powerful force: The
interconnected economy is still unravelling like a cheap sweater; terrorism
works precisely because it has no nation; environmental issues cut across
borders as easily as pollution and radioactivity do; culture seeps across
cultures. The net is simply an agent and accelerant of this change.
But then again, the net is also a new society. That idea is confounding to
nations of laws because the net¹s own sovereignty depends upon no one having
sovereignty over it. That is how it was designed. That is its core
principle. So it doesn¹t behave like a new land that, in Sarkozy¹s view,
needs civilizing. That is why net people acted like antigens at the e-G8,
rejecting its authority here. John Perry Barlow said he came to Paris to
stop Sarkozy from civilizing the net. Susan Crawford said we were there to
make it clear that he did not hold consensus. Lawrence Lessig said that the
real net people were not there. So Sarkozy thought he was negotiating a
treaty with the net but he couldn¹t, because he hadn¹t invited the net.
If Sarkozy can be credited with foresight it is with the vision that trouble
lies ahead for governments and their control. Just as music, news, media,
retail, travel, soon the academe, and so much more have been disrupted by
the net and the next waves of modernization, so will government. He is
trying to reserve himself a spot in that future.
Sarkozy like many others I include myself tie ourselves in knots when we
try to define the new world in the terms of the old. He is trying to put the
net under some new form of international governance among those he anoints
as the good guys, our benevolent new overloads. When I call it the eighth
continent, I treat it as a new land to be conquered. Let me try another way.
I believe the net could at last realize the vision of Jürgen Habermas for
the creation of a public sphere to act as a counterweight to the power and
authority of government. Habermas believes that in a brief shining moment,
we had that counterweight in the rational, critical debate that occurred in
the coffee houses and salons of England and Europe in the 18th century.
Whether that moment really occurred is up for considerable debate.
Nonetheless Habermas helpfully sets the terms of the discussion; he defines
an ideal. He also argues that as soon as the public sphere formed, it was
corrupted by mass media as an agent of power. In Public Parts I also quote
Jay Rosen on James Carey saying that the press¹ proper role in a democracy
is not to speak to the public to inform the public but to be informed by
the public.
Now, with the net, we have the opportunity at last to right both these
wrongs: to become the counterweight to government and media. So the net is
not a subset of lands we now know. It is not a a new land. It is the public
sphere. Or it can be.
It is up to us to protect it from conquest by government and media. It is up
to us to learn how to use it like the people of Tahrir Square to find
our true voice.
The only way that can happen is if the net remains independent and free of
those it would help check or disrupt in short, all the people Sarkozy
called to the Tuileries tents. That is why I asked them to take the
Hippocratic oath of the net, to first, do no harm.
* * *
Here is the transcript of the simultaneous translation of my encounter with
Sarkozy. He begins by mocking the question; that is evident in his tone. But
note that by the end he starts to understand what I¹m asking. He at least
acknowledges the fragility of what is being created. Oh, he still went to
the G8 to stick his flag in it; that, for him, is a matter of
self-preservation. But at the e-G8, thanks to the likes of Lessig, Crawford,
Jérémie Zimmermann, Yochai Benkler, I began to learn the terms of this
debate, this struggle over nothing less than the platform for the public
sphere.
Q: Monsieur le President, je m¹appelle Jeff Jarvis of the City University of
New York. You acknowledge that government does not own the internet. Yet we
see governments trying to claim sovereignty there. A U.S. official calls the
internet an eighth continent; it is a new land. What makes it free and open
is its very structure of being distributed and open. So as you go to the G8,
I have one small request. I think this discussion is wonderful. I think this
discussion about principles and the internet and shared understanding is
what we need. But I want to ask of government to take a Hippocratic oath for
the internet and that is: First, do no harm.
A: Well honestly it¹s not difficult to answer that question. Do no harm.
Absolutely. I mean why should you think we would harm you? You¹ve got
tremendous potential for growth and knowledge. It¹s extraordinary. I like
the expression the eighth continent.
But what do you mean by harm? I will certainly pay very close attention to
this. Now do you mean that bringing up the matter of security from terrorism
is a question of harm. Is that harmful. Or if we say you are creative people
and what you created has to be protected, respected and we have to also
respect and protect other creative people. Is that harmful to you? If we
said you wanted an eight continent to be the continent of freedom and
openness and we say that we mustn¹t give rise to new monopolies, is that
harmful? We can say there are sacred, universal values such as protecting a
child from the predatory nature of some adults. Is that harmful to you? I do
not think so.
I think what would be harmful to you would be not to recognize that you are
responsible, competent people, good citizensgood global citizens
shouldering their responsibilities. What would be harmful to you would be to
not even bring up the issue, being afraid you would not understand it. You
know the future so well you are certainly capable of understanding this
matter.
So if I am to do a Hippocratic oath of doing no harm, yes, I will take that
oath. I will even say that I like you. I¹d rather the sun shine than the
rain fall; I¹d rather businesses making money than losing money. It¹s great
being here. But ask for stronger commitments on my part.
I can say to you and I¹m convinced that for my colleagues as the heads of
state of government the same holds true: We¹re fully aware of the power of
the internet and at the same time the fragility of the overall internet
ecosystem. We mustn¹t enact any measures that would complicate the
development of this system. I agree with you fully, yes indeed. And I think
with the best intentions we could make for problems if we¹re not careful. So
in this market you¹re creating which hasn¹t yet stabilized we have to be
very careful before making a decision. The idea of regulating once and for
all is ill-suited to your economy. We have to very pragmatic moving forward:
evolve, use our experience, learn from it.
We must decide to do nothing than rather than do the wrong thing. Better to
hold back in a sector of growth and instability. So that¹s my oath that I
would certainly adhere to.
Let me say that for so many of you to come is a good sign. Because if you
felt it weren¹t meaningful you wouldn¹t have come. I really do believe it is
extremely important for us to continue this dialogue in mutual respect.
Believe me, what we want as heads of state in government is to make no
mistake in your area, your economy, which is a work in progress, which is
very fragile, which is very powerful at the same time. We do not want to
create any instability.
--
Janna Quitney Anderson
Director of Imagining the Internet
www.imaginingtheinternet.org
Associate Professor of Communications
Director of Internet Projects
School of Communications
Elon University
andersj at elon.edu
(336) 278-5733 (o)
____________________________________________________________
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
From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 15:27:36 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 07:27:36 +1200
Subject: [governance] E-G8, organising for multiple forums
In-Reply-To:
References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE035A3AD5AF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:
This has been a very interesting article. I have copied two colleagues into
the discussions.
As we continuously think, muse and debate about how internet should be
regulated, is it really a separate state on its own? No stakeholder within
the cyber environment should ever be marginalised in the discussions. I can
understand why the G8 brought governments and the private sector together,
because they are both the obvious stakeholders within the cyber environment.
The fact that they are marginalising others who are part of the eco system
is a possible indicator of a few possibilities:
1. There is a general lack of understanding at Governmental levels of the
cyber environment and who the stakeholders are (this hypothesis can be
tested); There can volumes of research and information on various subjects
but if there is no mechanism to connect the dots, then we have a bottle neck
within the policy advisory roles and it affects and shapes how governments
respond on issues;
2. Governments do not care for other stakeholder;
Whilst we should never "assume" to know what the actual position is, we can
endeavour to assess behavioural patterns. If we examine it closely, we will
begin to see that there are reasons for the manifestation.
I am thinking of the cyber environment and the internet eco system. I am
thinking of issues involving critical information infrastructure protection
and governments' stance on cyber attacks as direct attacks against national
sovereignty around the world.
In a sense there are various threats of attacks that is from national,
private sector, civil society etc. Governments no doubt have a duty to
protect its people from threats against National Security. The issues are
how far do you limit this hold. An examination of jurisdictions around the
world of how governments treat the matter show that they will regulate
according to matters important to them and the philosophies that justify the
regulations. Common threads are:-
1. Cyber Security;
2. Child Online Protection (most countries have ratified the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child or Optional Protocols and
other Children related protocols);
One of the key factors that help decide the level of prioritisation given to
an issue which is true for commercial entities and also true for governments
are "direct costs" and "indirect costs". Depending on what a person's skill
set or how he or she has been socialised, and this is also true for
governments and the type of philosophy they subscribe to it will impact on
how they interpret the indicators for direct costs and indirect costs.
For some it could be purely tangibly money, such as cost of cyber security
threats to an economy or the cost of dealing with Spam (% of the IT Budget
etc). For others, it could be the cost of creating social unrest and this is
why governments in certain parts of the world feel an obligation to monitor.
(I am not condonining it nor disagreeing with it - I am highlighting the
"invisible social constructs" that causes someone (individuals, communities,
governments) to do what they do.
If we are to, in the spirit of multistakeholder, engage everyone in
dialogue, then it is critical that we examine and discuss on what the "push"
and "pull" factors are and come to appreciate why and how people see because
if together we are to work towards finding solutions that are win-win for
all, then there has to be a high degree of both IQ and EQ. The cyber
environment is bigger than any one entity, it requires a level of
cooperation from all stakeholders to achieve at least some for form of
"Minimum standard", whatever that is for the IG community.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Janna Anderson wrote:
> To the Internet Governance Caucus list: This article of interest about the
> e-G8 is from Jeff Jarvis. I am copying this to Jeff - Jeff, you should
> become involved in IGC and the processes of the Internet Governance Forum,
> where we're trying to accomplish that of which you speak.
> IGC link: http://www.igcaucus.org/
> Link to some details from last global IGF:
> http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/default.xhtml
>
> Jeff's piece on the e-G8
> http://www.buzzmachine.com/2011/06/03/e-g8-a-discussion-about-sovereignty/
>
> e-G8: A discussion about sovereignty
>
> I¹m coming to see last week¹s e-G8 meeting in Paris as a negotiation over
> the sovereignty and future not only of the net but of government itself.
>
> The e-G8 was government¹s opening volley against the internet as its agent
> of disruption. Oh, yes, the gathering was positioned as exactly the
> opposite: We come in peace, said Nicolas Sarkozy. After hearing him speak
> to
> the thousand net, corporate, technology, and government machers he¹d
> assembled in Tuileries tents, I tweeted that I felt like a native of the
> Americas or Africa watching colonists¹ ships sail in, thinking, this can¹t
> end well.
>
> I rewatched Sarkozy¹s welcoming address and heard him alternately begging
> to
> be invited to the cool kids¹ partyand warning them of trouble if he isn¹t.
> ³As long as the internet is part and parcel of the daily lives of our
> citizens, it would be a contradiction to leave government out of this
> massive discussion,² he said.
>
> Then he asserted: ³No one should forget that governments in our democracies
> are the only legitimate representatives of their citizens.² Really, Mr.
> President? Tell that to the people of Tahrir Square. The citizens of Egypt
> found their true voice apart from the government of their so-called
> democracy. Spring is not only overtaking the Middle East. In Spain, too,
> citizens are speaking for themselves, because they can. Where else will it
> spread?
>
> This was actually a discussion about sovereignty: governments¹ and the
> net¹s. ³We want to tell you that the universe that you represent is not a
> parallel universe that is free from the rules of law, or the ethics or any
> of the fundamental principles that must govern the social lives our
> democratic states,² Sarkozy told the tent. But is he right? Sarkozy acted
> as
> if he were planting his flag in the soil of this new land. A few minutes
> later (see transcript below) I called the net the eighth continent, an
> image
> I heard from Peter Levin, CTO of the Department of Veterans Affairs ‹ and a
> phrase the President liked.
>
> The eighth continent metaphor is confusing, though, since everyone is a
> citizen of some land but now anyone can also be a citizen of the net. It¹s
> not as if we¹re all taking off for Plymouth Rock, leaving our native lands
> behind. We do still live each in our own nation under its laws ‹ you¹re
> right about that, Mr. President. Abusing children or stealing money is a
> crime everywhere, no matter whether it occurs online.
>
> But many of us ‹ net people ‹ have a new loyalty that inevitably undercuts
> old, national authority. Before I¹m accused of being a net exceptionalist,
> let me quickly say that the net is hardly the only factor in this modern
> disruption of authority. Globalization may be the more powerful force: The
> interconnected economy is still unravelling like a cheap sweater; terrorism
> works precisely because it has no nation; environmental issues cut across
> borders as easily as pollution and radioactivity do; culture seeps across
> cultures. The net is simply an agent and accelerant of this change.
>
> But then again, the net is also a new society. That idea is confounding to
> nations of laws because the net¹s own sovereignty depends upon no one
> having
> sovereignty over it. That is how it was designed. That is its core
> principle. So it doesn¹t behave like a new land that, in Sarkozy¹s view,
> needs civilizing. That is why net people acted like antigens at the e-G8,
> rejecting its authority here. John Perry Barlow said he came to Paris to
> stop Sarkozy from civilizing the net. Susan Crawford said we were there to
> make it clear that he did not hold consensus. Lawrence Lessig said that the
> real net people were not there. So Sarkozy thought he was negotiating a
> treaty with the net but he couldn¹t, because he hadn¹t invited the net.
>
> If Sarkozy can be credited with foresight it is with the vision that
> trouble
> lies ahead for governments and their control. Just as music, news, media,
> retail, travel, soon the academe, and so much more have been disrupted by
> the net and the next waves of modernization, so will government. He is
> trying to reserve himself a spot in that future.
>
> Sarkozy like many others ‹ I include myself ‹ tie ourselves in knots when
> we
> try to define the new world in the terms of the old. He is trying to put
> the
> net under some new form of international governance among those he anoints
> as the good guys, our benevolent new overloads. When I call it the eighth
> continent, I treat it as a new land to be conquered. Let me try another
> way.
>
> I believe the net could at last realize the vision of Jürgen Habermas for
> the creation of a public sphere to act as a counterweight to the power and
> authority of government. Habermas believes that in a brief shining moment,
> we had that counterweight in the rational, critical debate that occurred in
> the coffee houses and salons of England and Europe in the 18th century.
>
> Whether that moment really occurred is up for considerable debate.
> Nonetheless Habermas helpfully sets the terms of the discussion; he defines
> an ideal. He also argues that as soon as the public sphere formed, it was
> corrupted by mass media as an agent of power. In Public Parts I also quote
> Jay Rosen on James Carey saying that the press¹ proper role in a democracy
> is not to speak to the public ‹ to inform the public ‹ but to be informed
> by
> the public.
>
> Now, with the net, we have the opportunity at last to right both these
> wrongs: to become the counterweight to government and media. So the net is
> not a subset of lands we now know. It is not a a new land. It is the public
> sphere. Or it can be.
>
> It is up to us to protect it from conquest by government and media. It is
> up
> to us to learn how to use it ‹ like the people of Tahrir Square ‹ to find
> our true voice.
>
> The only way that can happen is if the net remains independent and free of
> those it would help check or disrupt ‹ in short, all the people Sarkozy
> called to the Tuileries tents. That is why I asked them to take the
> Hippocratic oath of the net, to first, do no harm.
>
> * * *
> Here is the transcript of the simultaneous translation of my encounter with
> Sarkozy. He begins by mocking the question; that is evident in his tone.
> But
> note that by the end he starts to understand what I¹m asking. He at least
> acknowledges the fragility of what is being created. Oh, he still went to
> the G8 to stick his flag in it; that, for him, is a matter of
> self-preservation. But at the e-G8, thanks to the likes of Lessig,
> Crawford,
> Jérémie Zimmermann, Yochai Benkler, I began to learn the terms of this
> debate, this struggle over nothing less than the platform for the public
> sphere.
>
> Q: Monsieur le President, je m¹appelle Jeff Jarvis of the City University
> of
> New York. You acknowledge that government does not own the internet. Yet we
> see governments trying to claim sovereignty there. A U.S. official calls
> the
> internet an eighth continent; it is a new land. What makes it free and open
> is its very structure of being distributed and open. So as you go to the
> G8,
> I have one small request. I think this discussion is wonderful. I think
> this
> discussion about principles and the internet and shared understanding is
> what we need. But I want to ask of government to take a Hippocratic oath
> for
> the internet and that is: First, do no harm.
>
> A: Well honestly it¹s not difficult to answer that question. Do no harm.
> Absolutely. I mean why should you think we would harm you? You¹ve got
> tremendous potential for growth and knowledge. It¹s extraordinary. I like
> the expression the eighth continent.
>
> But what do you mean by harm? I will certainly pay very close attention to
> this. Now do you mean that bringing up the matter of security from
> terrorism
> is a question of harm. Is that harmful. Or if we say you are creative
> people
> and what you created has to be protected, respected and we have to also
> respect and protect other creative people. Is that harmful to you? If we
> said you wanted an eight continent to be the continent of freedom and
> openness and we say that we mustn¹t give rise to new monopolies, is that
> harmful? We can say there are sacred, universal values such as protecting a
> child from the predatory nature of some adults. Is that harmful to you? I
> do
> not think so.
>
> I think what would be harmful to you would be not to recognize that you are
> responsible, competent people, good citizens‹good global citizens
> shouldering their responsibilities. What would be harmful to you would be
> to
> not even bring up the issue, being afraid you would not understand it. You
> know the future so well you are certainly capable of understanding this
> matter.
>
> So if I am to do a Hippocratic oath of doing no harm, yes, I will take that
> oath. I will even say that I like you. I¹d rather the sun shine than the
> rain fall; I¹d rather businesses making money than losing money. It¹s great
> being here. But ask for stronger commitments on my part.
>
> I can say to you and I¹m convinced that for my colleagues as the heads of
> state of government the same holds true: We¹re fully aware of the power of
> the internet and at the same time the fragility of the overall internet
> ecosystem. We mustn¹t enact any measures that would complicate the
> development of this system. I agree with you fully, yes indeed. And I think
> with the best intentions we could make for problems if we¹re not careful.
> So
> in this market you¹re creating which hasn¹t yet stabilized we have to be
> very careful before making a decision. The idea of regulating once and for
> all is ill-suited to your economy. We have to very pragmatic moving
> forward:
> evolve, use our experience, learn from it.
>
> We must decide to do nothing than rather than do the wrong thing. Better to
> hold back in a sector of growth and instability. So that¹s my oath that I
> would certainly adhere to.
>
> Let me say that for so many of you to come is a good sign. Because if you
> felt it weren¹t meaningful you wouldn¹t have come. I really do believe it
> is
> extremely important for us to continue this dialogue in mutual respect.
>
> Believe me, what we want as heads of state in government is to make no
> mistake in your area, your economy, which is a work in progress, which is
> very fragile, which is very powerful at the same time. We do not want to
> create any instability.
>
>
> --
> Janna Quitney Anderson
> Director of Imagining the Internet
> www.imaginingtheinternet.org
>
> Associate Professor of Communications
> Director of Internet Projects
> School of Communications
> Elon University
> andersj at elon.edu
> (336) 278-5733 (o)
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
Sala
"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 19:04:33 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:04:33 +1200
Subject: [governance] Limitations of Rights of Access
Message-ID:
Dear All,
There was an Article in the LA Times in relation to a Special Rapporteur’s
Report to the UN Human Rights Council.
If this was posted before, I apologise, must have missed it, see:
http://documents.latimes.com/un-report-internet-rights/
The journalist who reported on the Report did not report on the tests which
I find interesting, on page 8.
There are generally accepted principles that the right to freedom of
expression can be curtailed in certain instances. Frank La Rue (Special
Rapporteur) advises and the Report states in page 8 of the Report that any
limitation to the right of freedom of expression must pass a three-part
cumulative test (excerpt from Report are highlighted in yellow):-
(a) It must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone
(principles of predictability and transparency); and
(b) It must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3,
of the Covenant, namely (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others,
or (ii) to protect national security or of public order, or of public health
or morals (principle of legitimacy); and
(c) It must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required
to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality).
Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression
must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial,
or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the
possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.
25. As such, legitimate types of information which may be restricted include
child pornography (to protect the rights of children),8 hate speech (to
protect the rights of affected communities),9 defamation (to protect the
rights and reputation of others against unwarranted attacks), direct and
public incitement to commit genocide (to protect the rights of others),10
and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (to protect the rights
of others, such as the right to life).
Kind Regards,
Sala
Sala
"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From pouzin at well.com Mon Jun 6 07:42:12 2011
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:42:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] Government licensing internet
In-Reply-To: <675693.68014.qm@web161007.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <675693.68014.qm@web161007.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
> some more coverage in the news:
>
> http://www.infowars.com/microsoft-proposes-government-licensing-internet-access/
>
> "State should have power to block individual computers from connecting to
> world wide web, claims Charne"
>
> It was posted in 2010, but it was discussed over here to and asked me to
> about the policies and guidelines in the framework of Internet Governance.
>
> Thanks
>
> Imran
> ------------------------------
>
- - -
At first sight Scott Charney's proposal could be discarded as a joke. Since
joking is not exactly M$ style, why would they use such a thick fig-leaf
(calling on gov supervision) to conceal their real agenda ? Are they
expecting some positive reaction to the prospect of a (worldwide) morality
agency ? Quite unlikely. Are they trying to position M$ as a world leader in
internet protection ? Perhaps. Do they have a concrete plan for exercising a
leading role ? Well, the plan may be flawed but it does exist.
Try googling *scott charney microsoft internet*, you'll get a flurry of
links to recent Charney's speeches starting on various premises but ending
with a recurring proposition: *M$ understands the problem, and they got the
tools*. E.g. last parag of:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/charney/2011/02-15rsa2011.mspx
Good old marketing spin, attract attention, and instill the message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 14:18:53 2011
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 06:18:53 +1200
Subject: [governance] Government licensing internet
In-Reply-To:
References: <675693.68014.qm@web161007.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID:
The Special Rapporteur’s Report to the UN Human Rights
Council describes when Governments should regulate access and describes a
three part cumulative test.
http://documents.latimes.com/un-report-internet-rights/
The journalist who reported on the Report did not report on the tests which
I find interesting, on page 8.
There are generally accepted principles that the right to freedom of
expression can be curtailed in certain instances. Frank La Rue (Special
Rapporteur) advises and the Report states in page 8 of the Report that any
limitation to the right of freedom of expression must pass a three-part
cumulative test (excerpt from Report are highlighted in yellow):-
(a) It must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone
(principles of predictability and transparency); and
(b) It must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3,
of the Covenant, namely (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others,
or (ii) to protect national security or of public order, or of public health
or morals (principle of legitimacy); and
(c) It must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required
to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality).
Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression
must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial,
or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the
possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.
25. As such, legitimate types of information which may be restricted include
child pornography (to protect the rights of children),8 hate speech (to
protect the rights of affected communities),9 defamation (to protect the
rights and reputation of others against unwarranted attacks), direct and
public incitement to commit genocide (to protect the rights of others),10
and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (to protect the rights
of others, such as the right to life).
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
>
>> some more coverage in the news:
>>
>> http://www.infowars.com/microsoft-proposes-government-licensing-internet-access/
>>
>> "State should have power to block individual computers from connecting to
>> world wide web, claims Charne"
>>
>> It was posted in 2010, but it was discussed over here to and asked me to
>> about the policies and guidelines in the framework of Internet Governance.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Imran
>> ------------------------------
>>
>
> - - -
> At first sight Scott Charney's proposal could be discarded as a joke. Since
> joking is not exactly M$ style, why would they use such a thick fig-leaf
> (calling on gov supervision) to conceal their real agenda ? Are they
> expecting some positive reaction to the prospect of a (worldwide) morality
> agency ? Quite unlikely. Are they trying to position M$ as a world leader in
> internet protection ? Perhaps. Do they have a concrete plan for exercising a
> leading role ? Well, the plan may be flawed but it does exist.
>
> Try googling *scott charney microsoft internet*, you'll get a flurry of
> links to recent Charney's speeches starting on various premises but ending
> with a recurring proposition: *M$ understands the problem, and they got
> the tools*. E.g. last parag of:
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/charney/2011/02-15rsa2011.mspx
>
> Good old marketing spin, attract attention, and instill the message.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
--
Sala
"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Mon Jun 6 15:08:09 2011
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:08:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] Nominate
In-Reply-To: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
References: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20110606150809.18221ooy1rhopift@www.ciencitec.com>
Mr. Jeremy:
I wish to nominate as a candidate:
Jose Francisco Callo Romero
Lima, Peru
Thank you for your attention
Jose F. Callo Romero
CEO - ciencitec.com
____________________________________________________________
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
From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jun 7 05:33:19 2011
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:33:19 +0800
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
In-Reply-To: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
References: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4DEDF05F.4060203@ciroap.org>
On 02/06/11 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> This is a reminder that we are again selecting a new nominating
> committee for the IGC. We need a pool of 25 nominees, from which 5
> will be randomly selected. Any list member is eligible to put their
> name into the pool. So far we have 1 position filled out of 25.
> Please reply to me or Izumi if you are willing to put your name into
> the hat.
>
> Thank you to the previous committee who were Qusai AlShatti, Hempal
> Shrestha, Ian Peter, Gurumurthy K and Jacqueline Morris. They are
> eligible to renominate if they would like the opportunity to serve again.
We are almost half-way to the number we need. I have twelve nominees
for the pool. I need another thirteen.
To reiterate, five of these 25 members will be randomly selected to form
a nominating committee (or nomcom) for the IGC. That nomcom will decide
who will be the IGC's nominees for the next Multistakeholder Advisory
Group (MAG) of the IGF.
If you are willing to be part of this nomcom, please let me and/or Izumi
have your name by private email.
--
*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator*
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent
and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member
organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
_www.consumersinternational.org _
_Twitter @ConsumersInt _
Read our email confidentiality notice
. Don't
print this email unless necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3762 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL:
From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Tue Jun 7 06:05:28 2011
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:05:28 +0000
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
In-Reply-To: <4DEDF05F.4060203@ciroap.org>
References: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>,<4DEDF05F.4060203@ciroap.org>
Message-ID:
Dear Dr. Malcom
I am still new in this field but extremely interested and have energy. I would like to put my name for nomination too.
Grace Githaiga
Kenya ICT Action Network (kictanet).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have the strength to survive, you have the power to succeed. Life is all about choices we make depending upon the situation we are in. Go forth and rule the World!
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:33:19 +0800
From: jeremy at ciroap.org
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
On 02/06/11 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
This is a reminder that we are again selecting a new nominating committee for the IGC. We need a pool of 25 nominees, from which 5 will be randomly selected. Any list member is eligible to put their name into the pool. So far we have 1 position filled out of 25. Please reply to me or Izumi if you are willing to put your name into the hat.
Thank you to the previous committee who were Qusai AlShatti, Hempal Shrestha, Ian Peter, Gurumurthy K and Jacqueline Morris. They are eligible to renominate if they would like the opportunity to serve again.
We are almost half-way to the number we need. I have twelve nominees for the pool. I need another thirteen.
To reiterate, five of these 25 members will be randomly selected to form a nominating committee (or nomcom) for the IGC. That nomcom will decide who will be the IGC's nominees for the next Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the IGF.
If you are willing to be part of this nomcom, please let me and/or Izumi have your name by private email.
--
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
www.consumersinternational.org
Twitter @ConsumersInt
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Jun 7 12:48:39 2011
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 13:48:39 -0300
Subject: RES: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
In-Reply-To: <4DEDF05F.4060203@ciroap.org>
References: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org> <4DEDF05F.4060203@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <02fa01cc2532$c8940c80$59bc2580$@uol.com.br>
You could consider my name if you think will be interesting.
All the best
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464
De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de
Jeremy Malcolm
Enviada em: terça-feira, 7 de junho de 2011 06:33
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Assunto: Re: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
On 02/06/11 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
This is a reminder that we are again selecting a new nominating committee
for the IGC. We need a pool of 25 nominees, from which 5 will be randomly
selected. Any list member is eligible to put their name into the pool. So
far we have 1 position filled out of 25. Please reply to me or Izumi if you
are willing to put your name into the hat.
Thank you to the previous committee who were Qusai AlShatti, Hempal
Shrestha, Ian Peter, Gurumurthy K and Jacqueline Morris. They are eligible
to renominate if they would like the opportunity to serve again.
We are almost half-way to the number we need. I have twelve nominees for
the pool. I need another thirteen.
To reiterate, five of these 25 members will be randomly selected to form a
nominating committee (or nomcom) for the IGC. That nomcom will decide who
will be the IGC's nominees for the next Multistakeholder Advisory Group
(MAG) of the IGF.
If you are willing to be part of this nomcom, please let me and/or Izumi
have your name by private email.
--
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and
authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help
protect and empower consumers everywhere.
www.consumersinternational.org
Twitter @ConsumersInt
Read our email confidentiality notice
. Don't print
this email unless necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2817 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1020 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
-------------- 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
From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 8 01:04:14 2011
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:34:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
Dear Bertrand,
Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen
to get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the
contrary of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast
who have run away from probing questions both of (1) the principled and
logical basis of their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working
models of governance that they propose. I hope in this present
discussion they, and you, can answer such questions.
I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly gets
spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting
during the panel discussion moderated by you.
Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
"what I am missing in your very critical comment ("/it is very much the
wrong direction/") is the proposed alternative;"
The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of
representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening
democracy or what we may also call as participatory democracy (though
not the anarchic versions of it which suffer from the precise ill you
speak of - a real workable alternative model). Its institutional forms -
existing and those possible in the future - have been well discussed in
literature, and there is enough stuff about practical working models as
well, including some about the global space. I am ready, in fact eager,
to have a specific discussion on this.
I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of working
models of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking democracy
forward rather than supplanting it. We, as in my organisation, worked
with the Indian government delegates to come up with a clear proposal on
how MAG for instance should be constituted, which addresses the
negatives of MSism. This part of the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed,
which is also largely contained in the contribution IT for Change made
to the process. Is it not specific enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring
role' I am eager to know what are your own views on it.
The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of your
email.
".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under
way presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and
"deeper democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only
intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what
would you like to see that would be so different from what is being
attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify thrashing it
instead of perfecting it ?"
First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in the UN
or the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge huge
improvements changes. This must be obvious from my contributions to the
IGC and other forums. However, my contention also is that MSism as
currently practised in the IG arena may actually be making things worse.
Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are
less powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can
you honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing
currently? I do not think so. I think it has become a cover or a
legitimising device for increased influence on policy making of those
who are already very powerful, with which I mean the big businessin the
digital/ IT/ Internet space. There are numerous examples of this, and
what is more problematic is how such huge transgressions to political
and democratic propriety are routinely responded to by 'deep silences'
on the part of MSism upholders. Such silences favouring the interests of
the powerful, as you will also see from the Spanish protests (as also
earlier ones in the Arab world), are the very anti-thesis of new
democratic processes that we would like to see take root. Following are
but a very few examples of what MSism in IG space is really showing up
to be....
1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates the
discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific details here
but am happy to discuss this further if you so want. Developing country
gov reps have consistently raised this issue in their private
conversations about the IGF and the MAG. Very often this is the first
and the main issue they raise, and I have to agree with them.
2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was
supposed to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory
council made exclusively of big business.
3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed
regulation, together practically wrote the net neutrality legislation of
the the county which is the digital capital of the world. One would,
today, still think it impossible that the top drug company and the top
private hospital chain in the US 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text
secretively is a different thing) come up with the default health
policy draft, even in the US. This is an instance of the kind of
'firsts' that the IG world is contributing to our political systems, and
the MS discourse certainly has something to so with it.
4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a
practical monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who
acquired this business by buying off the incumbent public sector company
through means that have been severely questioned. Again a first in the
name of MSism.
5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital content
companies, interested in the huge public education 'market' of India,
quite ingeniously managed to become the key and driving participants of
an 'officially' mandated MS process of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs
in schools' policy. The draft that came out was of course on the
expected lines. It took a huge amount of work from organisation like
ours to get the drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But
such things have not stopped.... So it is not for the joy of
contrarinian-ism that I offer critiques to MSism, this has had central
implications to my organisation's political struggles.
6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting only
of big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds
consultations where only these big business reps are invited. (see for a
recent meeting of such kind
http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf
). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any other
department in India.
The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with MSism,
to quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the weight of some
actors, the north-south unbalances and the representation of the
unrepresented' , one needs to know clearly what is being done about
them. Merely mentioning them as a footnote is of little use to those
whom these issues really bother. What I see is that there seems not even
the readiness to debate these issues, much less do anything about them,
which to me confirms my hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much
what goes for MSism in the IG arena.
Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are
they ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of
hazy MSism as they recommend for global governance? If not why this
discrimination - democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because global
democracy brings the danger of global redistributions with it, and MSism
on the other hand helps promote Northern businesses establish even
greater global dominance and thus creates transfer channels in
directions opposite to what globally democratic political systems will
tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for Northern governments'
enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not at places where
they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind the 'friendly
governments' discourse frequently heard on this list.
Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further.
Parminder
On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Thanks for sharing the article.
>
> Two points on your remarks:
> - fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory
> democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;
> - I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the
> current modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do
> deserve attention (such as the risks of capture, the weight of some
> actors, the north-south unbalances and the representation of the
> unrepresented); however, what I am missing in your very critical
> comment ("/it is very much the wrong direction/") is the proposed
> alternative; imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently
> under way presenting more potential for broad participation, openness
> and "deeper democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only
> intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ?
>
> In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different
> from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would
> justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF improvements - MSism related parts.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 44137 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
-------------- 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
From ceo at bnnrc.net Wed Jun 8 01:23:12 2011
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:23:12 +0600
Subject: [governance] Spanish Radio Academy to propose to the UNESCO the
founding of a "World Radio Day" within the International Days UN calendar
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net> <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:
Dear Madam/Sir,
Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC), since its inception, has been advocating with the government and with other organizations for the promotion of Community Radio to address critical social issues at community level, such as poverty and social exclusion, empowerment of marginalized rural groups and catalyze democratic process in decision making and ongoing development efforts.
We would like to support the initiative of the Spanish Radio Academy to propose to the UNESCO the founding of a "World Radio Day" within the International Days UN calendar.
Since its launch more than a century ago, radio is free and accessible to the majority of the world’s population. Radio deserves a World Radio Day tribute. Undoubtedly, this date will be celebrated by radio professionals and millions of radio listeners around the world.
We are agreeable to celebrate the "World Radio Day" on every 30th of October. This date coincides with the broadcasting of one of the most relevant and well-known radio programmes in the history of radio, The War of the Worlds. This radio drama was directed by Orson Wells and broadcast by CBS on the 30th of October 1938 and since then, radio stations all over the world have produced versions in their own languages.
We support the initiative of the Spanish Radio Academy to propose the founding of a "World Radio Day" to the UNESCO.
We would be very happy if you initiate following activities through your organisation:
1. Endorse and send support letter on behalf of your organisation[Proto type support letter is available http://www.worldradioday.org/]
2. Start lobby with your Government in line with National UNESCO Commission in your country
4. Can we observe "World Radio Day" on every 30th of October
More information on World Radio Day: http://www.worldradioday.org/
Looking forward to stay with you, regarding World Radio Day" on every 30th of October.
With Solidarity,
Bazlu
_______________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
Chief Executive Officer
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]
&
Head, Community Radio Academy
House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207
Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh
Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501
Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105
E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:08:02 2011
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:08:02 -0300
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To: <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:
Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no vamos a
cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.
Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil del
IGF, con nada de éxito.
Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,
Roxana Goldstein
2011/6/8 parminder
> Dear Bertrand,
>
> Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen to
> get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the contrary
> of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast who have run
> away from probing questions both of (1) the principled and logical basis of
> their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working models of governance
> that they propose. I hope in this present discussion they, and you, can
> answer such questions.
>
> I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly gets spoken
> of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting during the
> panel discussion moderated by you.
>
> Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
>
> "what I am missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very much the
> wrong direction*") is the proposed alternative;"
>
> The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of
> representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening democracy
> or what we may also call as participatory democracy (though not the anarchic
> versions of it which suffer from the precise ill you speak of - a real
> workable alternative model). Its institutional forms - existing and those
> possible in the future - have been well discussed in literature, and there
> is enough stuff about practical working models as well, including some about
> the global space. I am ready, in fact eager, to have a specific discussion
> on this.
>
> I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of working models
> of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking democracy forward rather
> than supplanting it. We, as in my organisation, worked with the Indian
> government delegates to come up with a clear proposal on how MAG for
> instance should be constituted, which addresses the negatives of MSism. This
> part of the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, which is also largely contained
> in the contribution IT for Change made to the process. Is it not specific
> enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring role' I am eager to know what are your
> own views on it.
>
> The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of your
> email.
>
> ".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under way
> presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper
> democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only intergovernmental
> interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what would you like to see
> that would be so different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for
> instance, that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?"
>
> First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or
> the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge huge improvements
> changes. This must be obvious from my contributions to the IGC and other
> forums. However, my contention also is that MSism as currently practised in
> the IG arena may actually be making things worse.
>
> Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are less
> powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can you
> honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing currently? I do
> not think so. I think it has become a cover or a legitimising device for
> increased influence on policy making of those who are already very powerful,
> with which I mean the big business in the digital/ IT/ Internet space.
> There are numerous examples of this, and what is more problematic is how
> such huge transgressions to political and democratic propriety are
> routinely responded to by 'deep silences' on the part of MSism upholders.
> Such silences favouring the interests of the powerful, as you will also see
> from the Spanish protests (as also earlier ones in the Arab world), are the
> very anti-thesis of new democratic processes that we would like to see take
> root. Following are but a very few examples of what MSism in IG space is
> really showing up to be....
>
> 1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates the
> discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific details here but
> am happy to discuss this further if you so want. Developing country gov reps
> have consistently raised this issue in their private conversations about the
> IGF and the MAG. Very often this is the first and the main issue they raise,
> and I have to agree with them.
>
> 2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was supposed
> to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory council made
> exclusively of big business.
>
> 3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed regulation,
> together practically wrote the net neutrality legislation of the the county
> which is the digital capital of the world. One would, today, still think it
> impossible that the top drug company and the top private hospital chain in
> the US 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text secretively is a different thing)
> come up with the default health policy draft, even in the US. This is an
> instance of the kind of 'firsts' that the IG world is contributing to our
> political systems, and the MS discourse certainly has something to so with
> it.
>
> 4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a practical
> monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who acquired this
> business by buying off the incumbent public sector company through means
> that have been severely questioned. Again a first in the name of MSism.
>
> 5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital content
> companies, interested in the huge public education 'market' of India, quite
> ingeniously managed to become the key and driving participants of an
> 'officially' mandated MS process of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs in
> schools' policy. The draft that came out was of course on the expected
> lines. It took a huge amount of work from organisation like ours to get the
> drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But such things have not
> stopped.... So it is not for the joy of contrarinian-ism that I offer
> critiques to MSism, this has had central implications to my organisation's
> political struggles.
>
> 6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting only of
> big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds consultations
> where only these big business reps are invited. (see for a recent meeting
> of such kind
> http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any other
> department in India.
>
> The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with MSism, to
> quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors,
> the north-south unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented' ,
> one needs to know clearly what is being done about them. Merely mentioning
> them as a footnote is of little use to those whom these issues really
> bother. What I see is that there seems not even the readiness to debate
> these issues, much less do anything about them, which to me confirms my
> hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much what goes for MSism in the
> IG arena.
>
> Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are they
> ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of hazy MSism
> as they recommend for global governance? If not why this discrimination -
> democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because global democracy brings the
> danger of global redistributions with it, and MSism on the other hand helps
> promote Northern businesses establish even greater global dominance and thus
> creates transfer channels in directions opposite to what globally democratic
> political systems will tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for
> Northern governments' enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not
> at places where they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind
> the 'friendly governments' discourse frequently heard on this list.
>
> Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further.
>
> Parminder
>
> On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Thanks for sharing the article.
>
> Two points on your remarks:
> - fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory
> democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;
> - I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the current
> modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do deserve attention
> (such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors, the north-south
> unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented); however, what I am
> missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very much the wrong
> direction*") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as they are, aren't
> the experiences currently under way presenting more potential for broad
> participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use your formulation)
> than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ?
>
> In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different from
> what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify
> thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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:
-------------- 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
From Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de Wed Jun 8 08:14:05 2011
From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:14:05 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net> <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <00d401cc25d5$8fcb9f50$af62ddf0$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
Hola Roxana,
comparto tu punto de vista!
Saludos desde Múnich,
Lorena Jaume-Palasí
___________________________________________
Wiss. Mitarbeiterin
Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)
Geschwister Scholl Institut für Politikwissenschaft. LMU
www.gsi.uni-muenchen.de/personen/wiss_mitarbeiter/jaume-palasi
Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag
von Roxana Goldstein
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Juni 2011 14:08
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Betreff: Re: [governance] MSism and democracy
Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no vamos a
cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.
Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil del
IGF, con nada de éxito.
Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,
Roxana Goldstein
2011/6/8 parminder
Dear Bertrand,
Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen to
get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the contrary
of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast who have run
away from probing questions both of (1) the principled and logical basis of
their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working models of governance
that they propose. I hope in this present discussion they, and you, can
answer such questions.
I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly gets spoken
of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting during the
panel discussion moderated by you.
Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
"what I am missing in your very critical comment ("it is very much the wrong
direction") is the proposed alternative;"
The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of
representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening democracy
or what we may also call as participatory democracy (though not the anarchic
versions of it which suffer from the precise ill you speak of - a real
workable alternative model). Its institutional forms - existing and those
possible in the future - have been well discussed in literature, and there
is enough stuff about practical working models as well, including some about
the global space. I am ready, in fact eager, to have a specific discussion
on this.
I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of working models
of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking democracy forward rather
than supplanting it. We, as in my organisation, worked with the Indian
government delegates to come up with a clear proposal on how MAG for
instance should be constituted, which addresses the negatives of MSism. This
part of the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, which is also largely contained
in the contribution IT for Change made to the process. Is it not specific
enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring role' I am eager to know what are your
own views on it.
The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of your
email.
".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under way
presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper
democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only intergovernmental
interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what would you like to see
that would be so different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for
instance, that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?"
First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or
the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge huge improvements
changes. This must be obvious from my contributions to the IGC and other
forums. However, my contention also is that MSism as currently practised in
the IG arena may actually be making things worse.
Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are less
powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can you
honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing currently? I do
not think so. I think it has become a cover or a legitimising device for
increased influence on policy making of those who are already very powerful,
with which I mean the big business in the digital/ IT/ Internet space. There
are numerous examples of this, and what is more problematic is how such huge
transgressions to political and democratic propriety are routinely responded
to by 'deep silences' on the part of MSism upholders. Such silences
favouring the interests of the powerful, as you will also see from the
Spanish protests (as also earlier ones in the Arab world), are the very
anti-thesis of new democratic processes that we would like to see take root.
Following are but a very few examples of what MSism in IG space is really
showing up to be....
1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates the
discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific details here but
am happy to discuss this further if you so want. Developing country gov reps
have consistently raised this issue in their private conversations about the
IGF and the MAG. Very often this is the first and the main issue they raise,
and I have to agree with them.
2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was supposed
to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory council made
exclusively of big business.
3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed regulation,
together practically wrote the net neutrality legislation of the the county
which is the digital capital of the world. One would, today, still think it
impossible that the top drug company and the top private hospital chain in
the US 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text secretively is a different thing)
come up with the default health policy draft, even in the US. This is an
instance of the kind of 'firsts' that the IG world is contributing to our
political systems, and the MS discourse certainly has something to so with
it.
4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a practical
monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who acquired this
business by buying off the incumbent public sector company through means
that have been severely questioned. Again a first in the name of MSism.
5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital content
companies, interested in the huge public education 'market' of India, quite
ingeniously managed to become the key and driving participants of an
'officially' mandated MS process of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs in
schools' policy. The draft that came out was of course on the expected
lines. It took a huge amount of work from organisation like ours to get the
drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But such things have not
stopped.... So it is not for the joy of contrarinian-ism that I offer
critiques to MSism, this has had central implications to my organisation's
political struggles.
6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting only of
big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds consultations
where only these big business reps are invited. (see for a recent meeting
of such kind
http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalR
olloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf ). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still
does not happen in any other department in India.
The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with MSism, to
quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors,
the north-south unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented' ,
one needs to know clearly what is being done about them. Merely mentioning
them as a footnote is of little use to those whom these issues really
bother. What I see is that there seems not even the readiness to debate
these issues, much less do anything about them, which to me confirms my
hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much what goes for MSism in the
IG arena.
Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are they
ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of hazy MSism
as they recommend for global governance? If not why this discrimination -
democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because global democracy brings the
danger of global redistributions with it, and MSism on the other hand helps
promote Northern businesses establish even greater global dominance and thus
creates transfer channels in directions opposite to what globally democratic
political systems will tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for
Northern governments' enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not
at places where they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind
the 'friendly governments' discourse frequently heard on this list.
Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further.
Parminder
On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
Dear Parminder,
Thanks for sharing the article.
Two points on your remarks:
- fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory
democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;
- I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the current
modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do deserve attention
(such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors, the north-south
unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented); however, what I am
missing in your very critical comment ("it is very much the wrong
direction") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as they are, aren't the
experiences currently under way presenting more potential for broad
participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use your formulation)
than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ?
In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different from
what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify
thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
Best
Bertrand
____________________________________________________________
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:
-------------- 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
From cveraq at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:20:28 2011
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:20:28 -0500
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:
Ya empezo el debate.. como lo seguimos..
Carlos
2011/6/8 Roxana Goldstein
> Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no vamos
> a cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.
> Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil del
> IGF, con nada de éxito.
> Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,
> Roxana Goldstein
>
>
> 2011/6/8 parminder
>
>> Dear Bertrand,
>>
>> Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen to
>> get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the contrary
>> of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast who have run
>> away from probing questions both of (1) the principled and logical basis of
>> their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working models of governance
>> that they propose. I hope in this present discussion they, and you, can
>> answer such questions.
>>
>> I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly gets
>> spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting
>> during the panel discussion moderated by you.
>>
>> Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
>>
>> "what I am missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very much the
>> wrong direction*") is the proposed alternative;"
>>
>> The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of
>> representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening democracy
>> or what we may also call as participatory democracy (though not the anarchic
>> versions of it which suffer from the precise ill you speak of - a real
>> workable alternative model). Its institutional forms - existing and those
>> possible in the future - have been well discussed in literature, and there
>> is enough stuff about practical working models as well, including some about
>> the global space. I am ready, in fact eager, to have a specific discussion
>> on this.
>>
>> I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of working models
>> of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking democracy forward rather
>> than supplanting it. We, as in my organisation, worked with the Indian
>> government delegates to come up with a clear proposal on how MAG for
>> instance should be constituted, which addresses the negatives of MSism. This
>> part of the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, which is also largely contained
>> in the contribution IT for Change made to the process. Is it not specific
>> enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring role' I am eager to know what are your
>> own views on it.
>>
>> The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of your
>> email.
>>
>> ".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under way
>> presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper
>> democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only intergovernmental
>> interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what would you like to see
>> that would be so different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for
>> instance, that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?"
>>
>> First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or
>> the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge huge improvements
>> changes. This must be obvious from my contributions to the IGC and other
>> forums. However, my contention also is that MSism as currently practised in
>> the IG arena may actually be making things worse.
>>
>> Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are less
>> powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can you
>> honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing currently? I do
>> not think so. I think it has become a cover or a legitimising device for
>> increased influence on policy making of those who are already very powerful,
>> with which I mean the big business in the digital/ IT/ Internet space.
>> There are numerous examples of this, and what is more problematic is how
>> such huge transgressions to political and democratic propriety are
>> routinely responded to by 'deep silences' on the part of MSism upholders.
>> Such silences favouring the interests of the powerful, as you will also see
>> from the Spanish protests (as also earlier ones in the Arab world), are the
>> very anti-thesis of new democratic processes that we would like to see take
>> root. Following are but a very few examples of what MSism in IG space is
>> really showing up to be....
>>
>> 1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates the
>> discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific details here but
>> am happy to discuss this further if you so want. Developing country gov reps
>> have consistently raised this issue in their private conversations about the
>> IGF and the MAG. Very often this is the first and the main issue they raise,
>> and I have to agree with them.
>>
>> 2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was supposed
>> to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory council made
>> exclusively of big business.
>>
>> 3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed
>> regulation, together practically wrote the net neutrality legislation of the
>> the county which is the digital capital of the world. One would, today,
>> still think it impossible that the top drug company and the top private
>> hospital chain in the US 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text secretively is
>> a different thing) come up with the default health policy draft, even in
>> the US. This is an instance of the kind of 'firsts' that the IG world is
>> contributing to our political systems, and the MS discourse certainly has
>> something to so with it.
>>
>> 4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a practical
>> monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who acquired this
>> business by buying off the incumbent public sector company through means
>> that have been severely questioned. Again a first in the name of MSism.
>>
>> 5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital content
>> companies, interested in the huge public education 'market' of India, quite
>> ingeniously managed to become the key and driving participants of an
>> 'officially' mandated MS process of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs in
>> schools' policy. The draft that came out was of course on the expected
>> lines. It took a huge amount of work from organisation like ours to get the
>> drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But such things have not
>> stopped.... So it is not for the joy of contrarinian-ism that I offer
>> critiques to MSism, this has had central implications to my organisation's
>> political struggles.
>>
>> 6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting only of
>> big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds consultations
>> where only these big business reps are invited. (see for a recent meeting
>> of such kind
>> http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any other
>> department in India.
>>
>> The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with MSism, to
>> quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors,
>> the north-south unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented' ,
>> one needs to know clearly what is being done about them. Merely mentioning
>> them as a footnote is of little use to those whom these issues really
>> bother. What I see is that there seems not even the readiness to debate
>> these issues, much less do anything about them, which to me confirms my
>> hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much what goes for MSism in the
>> IG arena.
>>
>> Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are they
>> ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of hazy MSism
>> as they recommend for global governance? If not why this discrimination -
>> democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because global democracy brings the
>> danger of global redistributions with it, and MSism on the other hand helps
>> promote Northern businesses establish even greater global dominance and thus
>> creates transfer channels in directions opposite to what globally democratic
>> political systems will tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for
>> Northern governments' enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not
>> at places where they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind
>> the 'friendly governments' discourse frequently heard on this list.
>>
>> Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>>
>> Dear Parminder,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing the article.
>>
>> Two points on your remarks:
>> - fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory
>> democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;
>> - I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the
>> current modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do deserve
>> attention (such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors, the
>> north-south unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented);
>> however, what I am missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very
>> much the wrong direction*") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as
>> they are, aren't the experiences currently under way presenting more
>> potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use
>> your formulation) than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or
>> the G8 ?
>>
>> In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different
>> from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify
>> thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bertrand
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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:
-------------- 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
From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:28:49 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:28:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net> <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:38:01 2011
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:38:01 -0300
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To: <4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
<4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
Message-ID:
querida Ginger,
Si entiendo, pero si no hay debate en español, sólo pueden participar
aquellos que "dominan" el ingles´, no solo quienes lo manejan medianamente.
Y esto implica no sólo las reglas del idioma. sino sus modismos, sus
connotaciones y denotaciones, su cosmovisión.
El debate en otros idiomas en necesario y requiere soporte económico, de
recursos humanos, etc.
Luego puede implementarse una traducción, comunicación, etc. para establecer
mecanismos para su inclusión en el debate general, pero partiendo de tu
punto de vista, querida Ginger, sólo se refuerza el mecanismo perverso de la
dominacion idiomática, por lo tanto cultural, por lo tanto de distribuición
del poder y de las oportunidades de incidencia, y por lo tanto del acceso a
los bienes materiales y simbólicos disponibles.
No podemos partir de la idea de que para participar en un debate de
gobernanza global, cualquiera sea la materia u objeto de esa gobernanza, se
debe dominar un idioma que no es el propio. Esa idea es perversa, en el
sentido político lo digo, no personal, desde ya.
Abrazo grande,
Roxana
2011/6/8 Ginger Paque
> Hmmm... I have mixed feelings about this, even though it looks like the
> title is MSism... Multilingualism :)
>
> While I firmly believe we need to have more discussions in other languages,
> particularly Spanish, we need to be able to communicate with the larger
> community, and the common second language seems to be English.
>
> How can we manage both ideas?
> Saludos, ginger
>
> On 6/8/2011 7:20 AM, Carlos Vera wrote:
>
> Ya empezo el debate.. como lo seguimos..
>
> Carlos
>
> 2011/6/8 Roxana Goldstein
>
>> Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no vamos
>> a cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.
>> Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil del
>> IGF, con nada de éxito.
>> Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,
>> Roxana Goldstein
>>
>>
>> 2011/6/8 parminder
>>
>>> Dear Bertrand,
>>>
>>> Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen to
>>> get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the contrary
>>> of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast who have run
>>> away from probing questions both of (1) the principled and logical basis of
>>> their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working models of governance
>>> that they propose. I hope in this present discussion they, and you, can
>>> answer such questions.
>>>
>>> I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly gets
>>> spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting
>>> during the panel discussion moderated by you.
>>>
>>> Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
>>>
>>> "what I am missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very much the
>>> wrong direction*") is the proposed alternative;"
>>>
>>> The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of
>>> representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening democracy
>>> or what we may also call as participatory democracy (though not the anarchic
>>> versions of it which suffer from the precise ill you speak of - a real
>>> workable alternative model). Its institutional forms - existing and those
>>> possible in the future - have been well discussed in literature, and there
>>> is enough stuff about practical working models as well, including some about
>>> the global space. I am ready, in fact eager, to have a specific discussion
>>> on this.
>>>
>>> I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of working
>>> models of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking democracy forward
>>> rather than supplanting it. We, as in my organisation, worked with the
>>> Indian government delegates to come up with a clear proposal on how MAG for
>>> instance should be constituted, which addresses the negatives of MSism. This
>>> part of the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, which is also largely contained
>>> in the contribution IT for Change made to the process. Is it not specific
>>> enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring role' I am eager to know what are your
>>> own views on it.
>>>
>>> The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of your
>>> email.
>>>
>>> ".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under way
>>> presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper
>>> democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only intergovernmental
>>> interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what would you like to see
>>> that would be so different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for
>>> instance, that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?"
>>>
>>> First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in the UN
>>> or the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge huge
>>> improvements changes. This must be obvious from my contributions to the IGC
>>> and other forums. However, my contention also is that MSism as currently
>>> practised in the IG arena may actually be making things worse.
>>>
>>> Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are
>>> less powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can you
>>> honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing currently? I do
>>> not think so. I think it has become a cover or a legitimising device for
>>> increased influence on policy making of those who are already very powerful,
>>> with which I mean the big business in the digital/ IT/ Internet space.
>>> There are numerous examples of this, and what is more problematic is how
>>> such huge transgressions to political and democratic propriety are
>>> routinely responded to by 'deep silences' on the part of MSism
>>> upholders. Such silences favouring the interests of the powerful, as you
>>> will also see from the Spanish protests (as also earlier ones in the Arab
>>> world), are the very anti-thesis of new democratic processes that we would
>>> like to see take root. Following are but a very few examples of what MSism
>>> in IG space is really showing up to be....
>>>
>>> 1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates the
>>> discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific details here but
>>> am happy to discuss this further if you so want. Developing country gov reps
>>> have consistently raised this issue in their private conversations about the
>>> IGF and the MAG. Very often this is the first and the main issue they raise,
>>> and I have to agree with them.
>>>
>>> 2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was supposed
>>> to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory council made
>>> exclusively of big business.
>>>
>>> 3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed
>>> regulation, together practically wrote the net neutrality legislation of the
>>> the county which is the digital capital of the world. One would, today,
>>> still think it impossible that the top drug company and the top private
>>> hospital chain in the US 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text secretively is
>>> a different thing) come up with the default health policy draft, even in
>>> the US. This is an instance of the kind of 'firsts' that the IG world is
>>> contributing to our political systems, and the MS discourse certainly has
>>> something to so with it.
>>>
>>> 4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a practical
>>> monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who acquired this
>>> business by buying off the incumbent public sector company through means
>>> that have been severely questioned. Again a first in the name of MSism.
>>>
>>> 5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital content
>>> companies, interested in the huge public education 'market' of India, quite
>>> ingeniously managed to become the key and driving participants of an
>>> 'officially' mandated MS process of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs in
>>> schools' policy. The draft that came out was of course on the expected
>>> lines. It took a huge amount of work from organisation like ours to get the
>>> drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But such things have not
>>> stopped.... So it is not for the joy of contrarinian-ism that I offer
>>> critiques to MSism, this has had central implications to my organisation's
>>> political struggles.
>>>
>>> 6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting only of
>>> big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds consultations
>>> where only these big business reps are invited. (see for a recent meeting
>>> of such kind
>>> http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any other
>>> department in India.
>>>
>>> The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with MSism,
>>> to quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the weight of some
>>> actors, the north-south unbalances and the representation of the
>>> unrepresented' , one needs to know clearly what is being done about them.
>>> Merely mentioning them as a footnote is of little use to those whom these
>>> issues really bother. What I see is that there seems not even the readiness
>>> to debate these issues, much less do anything about them, which to me
>>> confirms my hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much what goes for
>>> MSism in the IG arena.
>>>
>>> Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are they
>>> ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of hazy MSism
>>> as they recommend for global governance? If not why this discrimination -
>>> democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because global democracy brings the
>>> danger of global redistributions with it, and MSism on the other hand helps
>>> promote Northern businesses establish even greater global dominance and thus
>>> creates transfer channels in directions opposite to what globally democratic
>>> political systems will tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for
>>> Northern governments' enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not
>>> at places where they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind
>>> the 'friendly governments' discourse frequently heard on this list.
>>>
>>> Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>> On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing the article.
>>>
>>> Two points on your remarks:
>>> - fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory
>>> democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;
>>> - I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the
>>> current modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do deserve
>>> attention (such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors, the
>>> north-south unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented);
>>> however, what I am missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very
>>> much the wrong direction*") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as
>>> they are, aren't the experiences currently under way presenting more
>>> potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use
>>> your formulation) than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or
>>> the G8 ?
>>>
>>> In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different
>>> from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify
>>> thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Bertrand
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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:
-------------- 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
From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:40:13 2011
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:40:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To: <4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
<4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
Message-ID:
Hi What happened to the translation feature that the list used to have,
provided by by funredes? I admit I never really looked much into that
(actually can't remember - it was quite a few years back), so I don't know
how much human interaction it required or whether it was wholly automatic.
Carlos? Can you weigh in on this?
Surely by now that must be software to reroute postings to lists via a
translation engine such as Google Translator? It is not ideal, but it is a
solution and Google Translate has improved a lot over the years.
Best regards,
Rui
2011/6/8 Ginger Paque
> Hmmm... I have mixed feelings about this, even though it looks like the
> title is MSism... Multilingualism :)
>
> While I firmly believe we need to have more discussions in other languages,
> particularly Spanish, we need to be able to communicate with the larger
> community, and the common second language seems to be English.
>
> How can we manage both ideas?
> Saludos, ginger
>
> On 6/8/2011 7:20 AM, Carlos Vera wrote:
>
> Ya empezo el debate.. como lo seguimos..
>
> Carlos
>
> 2011/6/8 Roxana Goldstein
>
>> Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no vamos
>> a cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.
>> Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil del
>> IGF, con nada de éxito.
>> Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,
>> Roxana Goldstein
>>
>>
>> 2011/6/8 parminder
>>
>>> Dear Bertrand,
>>>
>>> Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen to
>>> get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the contrary
>>> of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast who have run
>>> away from probing questions both of (1) the principled and logical basis of
>>> their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working models of governance
>>> that they propose. I hope in this present discussion they, and you, can
>>> answer such questions.
>>>
>>> I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly gets
>>> spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting
>>> during the panel discussion moderated by you.
>>>
>>> Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
>>>
>>> "what I am missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very much the
>>> wrong direction*") is the proposed alternative;"
>>>
>>> The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of
>>> representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening democracy
>>> or what we may also call as participatory democracy (though not the anarchic
>>> versions of it which suffer from the precise ill you speak of - a real
>>> workable alternative model). Its institutional forms - existing and those
>>> possible in the future - have been well discussed in literature, and there
>>> is enough stuff about practical working models as well, including some about
>>> the global space. I am ready, in fact eager, to have a specific discussion
>>> on this.
>>>
>>> I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of working
>>> models of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking democracy forward
>>> rather than supplanting it. We, as in my organisation, worked with the
>>> Indian government delegates to come up with a clear proposal on how MAG for
>>> instance should be constituted, which addresses the negatives of MSism. This
>>> part of the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, which is also largely contained
>>> in the contribution IT for Change made to the process. Is it not specific
>>> enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring role' I am eager to know what are your
>>> own views on it.
>>>
>>> The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of your
>>> email.
>>>
>>> ".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under way
>>> presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper
>>> democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only intergovernmental
>>> interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what would you like to see
>>> that would be so different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for
>>> instance, that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?"
>>>
>>> First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in the UN
>>> or the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge huge
>>> improvements changes. This must be obvious from my contributions to the IGC
>>> and other forums. However, my contention also is that MSism as currently
>>> practised in the IG arena may actually be making things worse.
>>>
>>> Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are
>>> less powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can you
>>> honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing currently? I do
>>> not think so. I think it has become a cover or a legitimising device for
>>> increased influence on policy making of those who are already very powerful,
>>> with which I mean the big business in the digital/ IT/ Internet space.
>>> There are numerous examples of this, and what is more problematic is how
>>> such huge transgressions to political and democratic propriety are
>>> routinely responded to by 'deep silences' on the part of MSism
>>> upholders. Such silences favouring the interests of the powerful, as you
>>> will also see from the Spanish protests (as also earlier ones in the Arab
>>> world), are the very anti-thesis of new democratic processes that we would
>>> like to see take root. Following are but a very few examples of what MSism
>>> in IG space is really showing up to be....
>>>
>>> 1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates the
>>> discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific details here but
>>> am happy to discuss this further if you so want. Developing country gov reps
>>> have consistently raised this issue in their private conversations about the
>>> IGF and the MAG. Very often this is the first and the main issue they raise,
>>> and I have to agree with them.
>>>
>>> 2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was supposed
>>> to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory council made
>>> exclusively of big business.
>>>
>>> 3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed
>>> regulation, together practically wrote the net neutrality legislation of the
>>> the county which is the digital capital of the world. One would, today,
>>> still think it impossible that the top drug company and the top private
>>> hospital chain in the US 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text secretively is
>>> a different thing) come up with the default health policy draft, even in
>>> the US. This is an instance of the kind of 'firsts' that the IG world is
>>> contributing to our political systems, and the MS discourse certainly has
>>> something to so with it.
>>>
>>> 4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a practical
>>> monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who acquired this
>>> business by buying off the incumbent public sector company through means
>>> that have been severely questioned. Again a first in the name of MSism.
>>>
>>> 5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital content
>>> companies, interested in the huge public education 'market' of India, quite
>>> ingeniously managed to become the key and driving participants of an
>>> 'officially' mandated MS process of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs in
>>> schools' policy. The draft that came out was of course on the expected
>>> lines. It took a huge amount of work from organisation like ours to get the
>>> drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But such things have not
>>> stopped.... So it is not for the joy of contrarinian-ism that I offer
>>> critiques to MSism, this has had central implications to my organisation's
>>> political struggles.
>>>
>>> 6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting only of
>>> big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds consultations
>>> where only these big business reps are invited. (see for a recent meeting
>>> of such kind
>>> http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any other
>>> department in India.
>>>
>>> The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with MSism,
>>> to quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the weight of some
>>> actors, the north-south unbalances and the representation of the
>>> unrepresented' , one needs to know clearly what is being done about them.
>>> Merely mentioning them as a footnote is of little use to those whom these
>>> issues really bother. What I see is that there seems not even the readiness
>>> to debate these issues, much less do anything about them, which to me
>>> confirms my hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much what goes for
>>> MSism in the IG arena.
>>>
>>> Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are they
>>> ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of hazy MSism
>>> as they recommend for global governance? If not why this discrimination -
>>> democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because global democracy brings the
>>> danger of global redistributions with it, and MSism on the other hand helps
>>> promote Northern businesses establish even greater global dominance and thus
>>> creates transfer channels in directions opposite to what globally democratic
>>> political systems will tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for
>>> Northern governments' enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not
>>> at places where they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind
>>> the 'friendly governments' discourse frequently heard on this list.
>>>
>>> Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>> On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing the article.
>>>
>>> Two points on your remarks:
>>> - fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory
>>> democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;
>>> - I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the
>>> current modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do deserve
>>> attention (such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors, the
>>> north-south unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented);
>>> however, what I am missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very
>>> much the wrong direction*") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as
>>> they are, aren't the experiences currently under way presenting more
>>> potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use
>>> your formulation) than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or
>>> the G8 ?
>>>
>>> In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different
>>> from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify
>>> thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Bertrand
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
--
_________________________
Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308
Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308
I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African
numbers
Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos
meus números sul-africanos
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
Angola Liaison Consultant
_______________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:42:04 2011
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:42:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
In-Reply-To: <02fa01cc2532$c8940c80$59bc2580$@uol.com.br>
References: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
<4DEDF05F.4060203@ciroap.org>
<02fa01cc2532$c8940c80$59bc2580$@uol.com.br>
Message-ID:
You could consider my name also:
Roxana Laura Goldstein
ISOC Argentina
Thanks,
Roxana
2011/6/7 Vanda UOL
> You could consider my name if you think will be interesting.
>
> All the best
>
>
>
> *Vanda Scartezini*
>
> *Polo Consultores Associados* **
>
> *IT Trend*
>
> *Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8*
>
> *01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil*
>
> *Tel + 5511 3266.6253*
>
> *Mob + 55118181.1464*
>
>
>
> *De:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *Em
> nome de *Jeremy Malcolm
> *Enviada em:* terça-feira, 7 de junho de 2011 06:33
> *Para:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Assunto:* Re: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
>
>
>
> On 02/06/11 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> This is a reminder that we are again selecting a new nominating committee
> for the IGC. We need a pool of 25 nominees, from which 5 will be randomly
> selected. Any list member is eligible to put their name into the pool. So
> far we have 1 position filled out of 25. Please reply to me or Izumi if you
> are willing to put your name into the hat.
>
> Thank you to the previous committee who were Qusai AlShatti, Hempal
> Shrestha, Ian Peter, Gurumurthy K and Jacqueline Morris. They are eligible
> to renominate if they would like the opportunity to serve again.
>
>
> We are almost half-way to the number we need. I have twelve nominees for
> the pool. I need another thirteen.
>
> To reiterate, five of these 25 members will be randomly selected to form a
> nominating committee (or nomcom) for the IGC. That nomcom will decide who
> will be the IGC's nominees for the next Multistakeholder Advisory Group
> (MAG) of the IGF.
>
> If you are willing to be part of this nomcom, please let me and/or Izumi
> have your name by private email.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and
> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help
> protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> *www.consumersinternational.org*
> *Twitter @ConsumersInt *
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1020 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
-------------- 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
From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Jun 8 08:45:06 2011
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 15:45:06 +0300
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
<4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
Message-ID: <20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info>
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:38:01AM -0300, Roxana Goldstein (goldstein.roxana at gmail.com) wrote:
> querida Ginger,
>
> Si entiendo, pero si no hay debate en español, sólo pueden participar
> aquellos que "dominan" el ingles´, no solo quienes lo manejan medianamente.
> Y esto implica no sólo las reglas del idioma. sino sus modismos, sus
> connotaciones y denotaciones, su cosmovisión.
>
> El debate en otros idiomas en necesario y requiere soporte económico, de
> recursos humanos, etc.
Näinhän se on, mutta vaikka minä ymmärränkin kohtuullisesti myös
espanjaa, en ole vakuuttunut tällaisen demonstraation hyödyllisyydestä.
--
Tapani Tarvainen
____________________________________________________________
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
From cveraq at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:00:38 2011
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:00:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net><4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net><4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
Message-ID: <93143515-1307537162-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1989861330-@b26.c2.bise6.blackberry>
As said here problem is not only be able to understand but able to communicate and have full presence.
This is only possible in native language or with professional translation
Carlos
-----Original Message-----
From: Rui Correia
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:40:13
To: ; Ginger Paque
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Rui Correia
Subject: Re: [governance] MSism and democracy
Hi What happened to the translation feature that the list used to have,
provided by by funredes? I admit I never really looked much into that
(actually can't remember - it was quite a few years back), so I don't know
how much human interaction it required or whether it was wholly automatic.
Carlos? Can you weigh in on this?
Surely by now that must be software to reroute postings to lists via a
translation engine such as Google Translator? It is not ideal, but it is a
solution and Google Translate has improved a lot over the years.
Best regards,
Rui
2011/6/8 Ginger Paque
> Hmmm... I have mixed feelings about this, even though it looks like the
> title is MSism... Multilingualism :)
>
> While I firmly believe we need to have more discussions in other languages,
> particularly Spanish, we need to be able to communicate with the larger
> community, and the common second language seems to be English.
>
> How can we manage both ideas?
> Saludos, ginger
>
> On 6/8/2011 7:20 AM, Carlos Vera wrote:
>
> Ya empezo el debate.. como lo seguimos..
>
> Carlos
>
> 2011/6/8 Roxana Goldstein
>
>> Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no vamos
>> a cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.
>> Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil del
>> IGF, con nada de éxito.
>> Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,
>> Roxana Goldstein
>>
>>
>> 2011/6/8 parminder
>>
>>> Dear Bertrand,
>>>
>>> Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen to
>>> get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the contrary
>>> of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast who have run
>>> away from probing questions both of (1) the principled and logical basis of
>>> their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working models of governance
>>> that they propose. I hope in this present discussion they, and you, can
>>> answer such questions.
>>>
>>> I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly gets
>>> spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting
>>> during the panel discussion moderated by you.
>>>
>>> Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
>>>
>>> "what I am missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very much the
>>> wrong direction*") is the proposed alternative;"
>>>
>>> The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of
>>> representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening democracy
>>> or what we may also call as participatory democracy (though not the anarchic
>>> versions of it which suffer from the precise ill you speak of - a real
>>> workable alternative model). Its institutional forms - existing and those
>>> possible in the future - have been well discussed in literature, and there
>>> is enough stuff about practical working models as well, including some about
>>> the global space. I am ready, in fact eager, to have a specific discussion
>>> on this.
>>>
>>> I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of working
>>> models of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking democracy forward
>>> rather than supplanting it. We, as in my organisation, worked with the
>>> Indian government delegates to come up with a clear proposal on how MAG for
>>> instance should be constituted, which addresses the negatives of MSism. This
>>> part of the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, which is also largely contained
>>> in the contribution IT for Change made to the process. Is it not specific
>>> enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring role' I am eager to know what are your
>>> own views on it.
>>>
>>> The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of your
>>> email.
>>>
>>> ".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under way
>>> presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper
>>> democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only intergovernmental
>>> interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what would you like to see
>>> that would be so different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for
>>> instance, that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?"
>>>
>>> First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in the UN
>>> or the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge huge
>>> improvements changes. This must be obvious from my contributions to the IGC
>>> and other forums. However, my contention also is that MSism as currently
>>> practised in the IG arena may actually be making things worse.
>>>
>>> Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are
>>> less powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can you
>>> honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing currently? I do
>>> not think so. I think it has become a cover or a legitimising device for
>>> increased influence on policy making of those who are already very powerful,
>>> with which I mean the big business in the digital/ IT/ Internet space.
>>> There are numerous examples of this, and what is more problematic is how
>>> such huge transgressions to political and democratic propriety are
>>> routinely responded to by 'deep silences' on the part of MSism
>>> upholders. Such silences favouring the interests of the powerful, as you
>>> will also see from the Spanish protests (as also earlier ones in the Arab
>>> world), are the very anti-thesis of new democratic processes that we would
>>> like to see take root. Following are but a very few examples of what MSism
>>> in IG space is really showing up to be....
>>>
>>> 1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates the
>>> discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific details here but
>>> am happy to discuss this further if you so want. Developing country gov reps
>>> have consistently raised this issue in their private conversations about the
>>> IGF and the MAG. Very often this is the first and the main issue they raise,
>>> and I have to agree with them.
>>>
>>> 2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was supposed
>>> to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory council made
>>> exclusively of big business.
>>>
>>> 3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed
>>> regulation, together practically wrote the net neutrality legislation of the
>>> the county which is the digital capital of the world. One would, today,
>>> still think it impossible that the top drug company and the top private
>>> hospital chain in the US 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text secretively is
>>> a different thing) come up with the default health policy draft, even in
>>> the US. This is an instance of the kind of 'firsts' that the IG world is
>>> contributing to our political systems, and the MS discourse certainly has
>>> something to so with it.
>>>
>>> 4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a practical
>>> monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who acquired this
>>> business by buying off the incumbent public sector company through means
>>> that have been severely questioned. Again a first in the name of MSism.
>>>
>>> 5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital content
>>> companies, interested in the huge public education 'market' of India, quite
>>> ingeniously managed to become the key and driving participants of an
>>> 'officially' mandated MS process of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs in
>>> schools' policy. The draft that came out was of course on the expected
>>> lines. It took a huge amount of work from organisation like ours to get the
>>> drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But such things have not
>>> stopped.... So it is not for the joy of contrarinian-ism that I offer
>>> critiques to MSism, this has had central implications to my organisation's
>>> political struggles.
>>>
>>> 6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting only of
>>> big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds consultations
>>> where only these big business reps are invited. (see for a recent meeting
>>> of such kind
>>> http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any other
>>> department in India.
>>>
>>> The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with MSism,
>>> to quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the weight of some
>>> actors, the north-south unbalances and the representation of the
>>> unrepresented' , one needs to know clearly what is being done about them.
>>> Merely mentioning them as a footnote is of little use to those whom these
>>> issues really bother. What I see is that there seems not even the readiness
>>> to debate these issues, much less do anything about them, which to me
>>> confirms my hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much what goes for
>>> MSism in the IG arena.
>>>
>>> Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are they
>>> ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of hazy MSism
>>> as they recommend for global governance? If not why this discrimination -
>>> democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because global democracy brings the
>>> danger of global redistributions with it, and MSism on the other hand helps
>>> promote Northern businesses establish even greater global dominance and thus
>>> creates transfer channels in directions opposite to what globally democratic
>>> political systems will tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for
>>> Northern governments' enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not
>>> at places where they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind
>>> the 'friendly governments' discourse frequently heard on this list.
>>>
>>> Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>> On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing the article.
>>>
>>> Two points on your remarks:
>>> - fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory
>>> democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;
>>> - I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the
>>> current modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do deserve
>>> attention (such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors, the
>>> north-south unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented);
>>> however, what I am missing in your very critical comment ("*it is very
>>> much the wrong direction*") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as
>>> they are, aren't the experiences currently under way presenting more
>>> potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use
>>> your formulation) than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or
>>> the G8 ?
>>>
>>> In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different
>>> from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify
>>> thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Bertrand
>>>
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
--
_________________________
Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308
Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308
I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African
numbers
Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos
meus números sul-africanos
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
Angola Liaison Consultant
_______________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:54:15 2011
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:54:15 -0500
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To: <20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net> <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net> <4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net> <20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <4DEF70F7.2010407@paque.net>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 8 08:59:09 2011
From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:59:09 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <209097.60828.qm@web29007.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Please consider my name too.Vincent Solomon AliamaUganda
“Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless”
NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA
CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045
EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com
Skype : vinsolo2
--- On Wed, 8/6/11, Roxana Goldstein wrote:
From: Roxana Goldstein
Subject: Re: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Izumi AIZU"
Date: Wednesday, 8 June, 2011, 13:42
You could consider my name also:
Roxana Laura GoldsteinISOC Argentina
Thanks,Roxana
2011/6/7 Vanda UOL
You could consider my name if you think will be interesting.
All the best Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
IT TrendAlameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, BrasilTel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464
De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Jeremy Malcolm
Enviada em: terça-feira, 7 de junho de 2011 06:33
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Assunto: Re: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
On 02/06/11 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: This is a reminder that we are again selecting a new nominating committee for the IGC. We need a pool of 25 nominees, from which 5 will be randomly selected. Any list member is eligible to put their name into the pool. So far we have 1 position filled out of 25. Please reply to me or Izumi if you are willing to put your name into the hat.
Thank you to the previous committee who were Qusai AlShatti, Hempal Shrestha, Ian Peter, Gurumurthy K and Jacqueline Morris. They are eligible to renominate if they would like the opportunity to serve again.
We are almost half-way to the number we need. I have twelve nominees for the pool. I need another thirteen.
To reiterate, five of these 25 members will be randomly selected to form a nominating committee (or nomcom) for the IGC. That nomcom will decide who will be the IGC's nominees for the next Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the IGF.
If you are willing to be part of this nomcom, please let me and/or Izumi have your name by private email. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
www.consumersinternational.org
Twitter @ConsumersInt
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
____________________________________________________________
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
____________________________________________________________
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:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1020 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
-------------- 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
From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 09:01:23 2011
From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:01:23 -0300
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To: <4DEF70F7.2010407@paque.net>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
<4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
<20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info>
<4DEF70F7.2010407@paque.net>
Message-ID:
Just to illustrate how viable the method mentioned by Rui would be, I put
Tapani's comment on Google translator and this is what I got:
"This is how it is, but even though I understand I also reasonably
Spanish, I'm not convinced that such a demonstration of the usefulness."
I supposed it was Finnish, but I assume the software could've done that.
Even though it's just a few words, the translation has the potential for
misunderstandings.
Still, it's better than nothing!
Best,
Ivar
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 09:54, Ginger Paque wrote:
> Exactly, Tapani--I have no idea what you said, but your point is clear :)
>
> During WSIS, I was a member of the WFUNA (World Federation of United
> Nations Associations) Task Force on WSIS. Our home working languages were
> Danish, Spanish, Urdu, and six others, and no one did their IG/WSIS work at
> home in English. BUT we did all of our TF work in English, because it was
> the only possible way for us communicate.
>
> That was years ago. Translation services have improved. What practical
> steps can we take for language inclusion?
> Can we include some kind of translation as suggested by Rui/Carlos?
> Should we have different threads in different languages?
> Should the subject line indicate the language as well as the topic?
>
> Has anyone found a working solution on another list?
>
> On 6/8/2011 7:45 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:38:01AM -0300, Roxana Goldstein (goldstein.roxana at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>
> querida Ginger,
>
> Si entiendo, pero si no hay debate en español, sólo pueden participar
> aquellos que "dominan" el ingles´, no solo quienes lo manejan medianamente.
> Y esto implica no sólo las reglas del idioma. sino sus modismos, sus
> connotaciones y denotaciones, su cosmovisión.
>
> El debate en otros idiomas en necesario y requiere soporte económico, de
> recursos humanos, etc.
>
> Näinhän se on, mutta vaikka minä ymmärränkin kohtuullisesti myös
> espanjaa, en ole vakuuttunut tällaisen demonstraation hyödyllisyydestä.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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:
-------------- 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
From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 8 09:02:17 2011
From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:02:17 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] Nominees Pool
Message-ID: <367073.53974.qm@web29007.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Please Consider my name tooVincent Solomon AliamaUganda
“Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless”
NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA
CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045
EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com
Skype : vinsolo2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From cveraq at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:17:40 2011
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 12:17:40 +0000
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
In-Reply-To: <209097.60828.qm@web29007.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <209097.60828.qm@web29007.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1294930519-1307538183-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-825872500-@b26.c2.bise6.blackberry>
+1 Carlos Vera also
-----Original Message-----
From: vincent solomon
Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:59:09
To: ; Roxana Goldstein
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,vincent solomon
Subject: Re: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
Please consider my name too.Vincent Solomon AliamaUganda
“Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless”
NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA
CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045
EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com
Skype : vinsolo2
--- On Wed, 8/6/11, Roxana Goldstein wrote:
From: Roxana Goldstein
Subject: Re: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Izumi AIZU"
Date: Wednesday, 8 June, 2011, 13:42
You could consider my name also:
Roxana Laura GoldsteinISOC Argentina
Thanks,Roxana
2011/6/7 Vanda UOL
You could consider my name if you think will be interesting.
All the best Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
IT TrendAlameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, BrasilTel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464
De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Jeremy Malcolm
Enviada em: terça-feira, 7 de junho de 2011 06:33
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Assunto: Re: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
On 02/06/11 12:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: This is a reminder that we are again selecting a new nominating committee for the IGC. We need a pool of 25 nominees, from which 5 will be randomly selected. Any list member is eligible to put their name into the pool. So far we have 1 position filled out of 25. Please reply to me or Izumi if you are willing to put your name into the hat.
Thank you to the previous committee who were Qusai AlShatti, Hempal Shrestha, Ian Peter, Gurumurthy K and Jacqueline Morris. They are eligible to renominate if they would like the opportunity to serve again.
We are almost half-way to the number we need. I have twelve nominees for the pool. I need another thirteen.
To reiterate, five of these 25 members will be randomly selected to form a nominating committee (or nomcom) for the IGC. That nomcom will decide who will be the IGC's nominees for the next Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the IGF.
If you are willing to be part of this nomcom, please let me and/or Izumi have your name by private email. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
www.consumersinternational.org
Twitter @ConsumersInt
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
____________________________________________________________
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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
From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 09:06:05 2011
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:06:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To: <4DEF70F7.2010407@paque.net>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
<4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
<20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info>
<4DEF70F7.2010407@paque.net>
Message-ID:
Si exacto, y sigo en mi idioma porque es en él en el que tengo mayor
potencia expresiva, y mayor capacidad de comunicación.
Por ejemplo, cuando uno intenta participar en inglés y no domina el inglés,
por ejemplo en algún debate del IGF caucus sociedad civil, los
angloparlantes nativos directamente descartan el mensaje, ya que les resulta
más incómodo leer un mensaje que no está en perfecto inglés. Es algo
instintivo, no digo mal intencionado, pero que termina reforzando la
exclusión de los no angloparlantes nativos en el debate global.
Mi experiencia con traductores automáticos en otras listas es que son
ineficientes. El producto de esas traducciones muchas veces es confuso, con
errores sintácticos, y se pierde contenido y el sentido de los mensajes.
Además, los mensajes resultan dificultosos para su lectura, lo que hace que
seguramente sean descartados o dejados de soslayo por la mayoría de los que
los reciben.
Una estrategia auténticamente multilingualista requiere traducción
profesional, no automática. Y requiere profundizar en el acercamiento,
comprensión y respeto de los mundos expresados por los diversos idiomas.
Algo más que sólo traducción, pero que debe ser parte ineludible de una
buena traducción.
Seguimos,
Roxana
2011/6/8 Ginger Paque
> Exactly, Tapani--I have no idea what you said, but your point is clear :)
>
> During WSIS, I was a member of the WFUNA (World Federation of United
> Nations Associations) Task Force on WSIS. Our home working languages were
> Danish, Spanish, Urdu, and six others, and no one did their IG/WSIS work at
> home in English. BUT we did all of our TF work in English, because it was
> the only possible way for us communicate.
>
> That was years ago. Translation services have improved. What practical
> steps can we take for language inclusion?
> Can we include some kind of translation as suggested by Rui/Carlos?
> Should we have different threads in different languages?
> Should the subject line indicate the language as well as the topic?
>
> Has anyone found a working solution on another list?
>
> On 6/8/2011 7:45 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:38:01AM -0300, Roxana Goldstein (goldstein.roxana at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>
> querida Ginger,
>
> Si entiendo, pero si no hay debate en español, sólo pueden participar
> aquellos que "dominan" el ingles´, no solo quienes lo manejan medianamente.
> Y esto implica no sólo las reglas del idioma. sino sus modismos, sus
> connotaciones y denotaciones, su cosmovisión.
>
> El debate en otros idiomas en necesario y requiere soporte económico, de
> recursos humanos, etc.
>
> Näinhän se on, mutta vaikka minä ymmärränkin kohtuullisesti myös
> espanjaa, en ole vakuuttunut tällaisen demonstraation hyödyllisyydestä.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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:
-------------- 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
From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 09:10:19 2011
From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:10:19 -0300
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
<4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
<20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info>
<4DEF70F7.2010407@paque.net>
Message-ID:
No my dear, this translation is equal to nothing!!!!!
This mesagge translated this way means nothing!!!!! it has no value for a
debate!!!!!
This is a good example of what I have just said in another mesagge -in
spanish-.
2011/6/8 Ivar A. M. Hartmann
> Just to illustrate how viable the method mentioned by Rui would be, I put
> Tapani's comment on Google translator and this is what I got:
> "This is how it is, but even though I understand I also reasonably
> Spanish, I'm not convinced that such a demonstration of the usefulness."
>
> I supposed it was Finnish, but I assume the software could've done that.
> Even though it's just a few words, the translation has the potential for
> misunderstandings.
> Still, it's better than nothing!
>
> Best,
> Ivar
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 09:54, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Exactly, Tapani--I have no idea what you said, but your point is clear
>> :)
>>
>> During WSIS, I was a member of the WFUNA (World Federation of United
>> Nations Associations) Task Force on WSIS. Our home working languages were
>> Danish, Spanish, Urdu, and six others, and no one did their IG/WSIS work at
>> home in English. BUT we did all of our TF work in English, because it was
>> the only possible way for us communicate.
>>
>> That was years ago. Translation services have improved. What practical
>> steps can we take for language inclusion?
>> Can we include some kind of translation as suggested by Rui/Carlos?
>> Should we have different threads in different languages?
>> Should the subject line indicate the language as well as the topic?
>>
>> Has anyone found a working solution on another list?
>>
>> On 6/8/2011 7:45 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:38:01AM -0300, Roxana Goldstein (goldstein.roxana at gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>> querida Ginger,
>>
>> Si entiendo, pero si no hay debate en español, sólo pueden participar
>> aquellos que "dominan" el ingles´, no solo quienes lo manejan medianamente.
>> Y esto implica no sólo las reglas del idioma. sino sus modismos, sus
>> connotaciones y denotaciones, su cosmovisión.
>>
>> El debate en otros idiomas en necesario y requiere soporte económico, de
>> recursos humanos, etc.
>>
>> Näinhän se on, mutta vaikka minä ymmärränkin kohtuullisesti myös
>> espanjaa, en ole vakuuttunut tällaisen demonstraation hyödyllisyydestä.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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:
-------------- 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
From Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de Wed Jun 8 09:17:39 2011
From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 15:17:39 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net> <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net> <4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net> <20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info> <4DEF70F7.2010407@paque.net>
Message-ID: <010101cc25de$715e3ab0$541ab010$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de>
La cuestión de comprensión y participación multilingual podría solucionarse
de la siguiente manera:
1. Resumir las discusiones periódicamente
2. Traducirlas al inglés
3. Presentar dicha traducción a la lista
4. Traducción de eventuales respuestas de la lista al castellano
5. Integración de dichas posiciones en la discussion
6. Volver al punto 1
Eso requeriría que alguien se ofreciese a realizer dicho trabajo, que no es
poco
Por otra parte ello ampliaria las posibilidades de participación, por lo
menos valdría la pena intentarlo..
Google translated my message as follows:
Spanish - detected to English translation
The issue of comprehension and multilingual participation could be addressed
as follows:
1. Periodically summarize the discussions
2. Translate to English
3. Present the translation to the list
4. Translation of possible responses from the list Castilian
5. Integration of these positions in the discussion
6. Back to point 1 ...
That would require someone to offer to perform such work, which is no small
...
On the other hand it would extend the possibilities of participation, at
least worth a try ..
Not perfect, but not that bad
Saludos, cheers
Lorena Jaume-Palasí
___________________________________________
Wiss. Mitarbeiterin
Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)
Geschwister Scholl Institut für Politikwissenschaft. LMU
www.gsi.uni-muenchen.de/personen/wiss_mitarbeiter/jaume-palasi
Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag
von Roxana Goldstein
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Juni 2011 15:06
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Cc: Tapani Tarvainen
Betreff: Re: [governance] MSism and democracy
Si exacto, y sigo en mi idioma porque es en él en el que tengo mayor
potencia expresiva, y mayor capacidad de comunicación.
Por ejemplo, cuando uno intenta participar en inglés y no domina el inglés,
por ejemplo en algún debate del IGF caucus sociedad civil, los
angloparlantes nativos directamente descartan el mensaje, ya que les resulta
más incómodo leer un mensaje que no está en perfecto inglés. Es algo
instintivo, no digo mal intencionado, pero que termina reforzando la
exclusión de los no angloparlantes nativos en el debate global.
Mi experiencia con traductores automáticos en otras listas es que son
ineficientes. El producto de esas traducciones muchas veces es confuso, con
errores sintácticos, y se pierde contenido y el sentido de los mensajes.
Además, los mensajes resultan dificultosos para su lectura, lo que hace que
seguramente sean descartados o dejados de soslayo por la mayoría de los que
los reciben.
Una estrategia auténticamente multilingualista requiere traducción
profesional, no automática. Y requiere profundizar en el acercamiento,
comprensión y respeto de los mundos expresados por los diversos idiomas.
Algo más que sólo traducción, pero que debe ser parte ineludible de una
buena traducción.
Seguimos,
Roxana
2011/6/8 Ginger Paque
Exactly, Tapani--I have no idea what you said, but your point is clear :)
During WSIS, I was a member of the WFUNA (World Federation of United
Nations Associations) Task Force on WSIS. Our home working languages were
Danish, Spanish, Urdu, and six others, and no one did their IG/WSIS work at
home in English. BUT we did all of our TF work in English, because it was
the only possible way for us communicate.
That was years ago. Translation services have improved. What practical steps
can we take for language inclusion?
Can we include some kind of translation as suggested by Rui/Carlos?
Should we have different threads in different languages?
Should the subject line indicate the language as well as the topic?
Has anyone found a working solution on another list?
On 6/8/2011 7:45 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:38:01AM -0300, Roxana Goldstein
(goldstein.roxana at gmail.com) wrote:
querida Ginger,
Si entiendo, pero si no hay debate en español, sólo pueden participar
aquellos que "dominan" el ingles´, no solo quienes lo manejan medianamente.
Y esto implica no sólo las reglas del idioma. sino sus modismos, sus
connotaciones y denotaciones, su cosmovisión.
El debate en otros idiomas en necesario y requiere soporte económico, de
recursos humanos, etc.
Näinhän se on, mutta vaikka minä ymmärränkin kohtuullisesti myös
espanjaa, en ole vakuuttunut tällaisen demonstraation hyödyllisyydestä.
____________________________________________________________
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:
-------------- 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
From julian at colnodo.apc.org Wed Jun 8 09:23:14 2011
From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Juli=E1n_Casasbuenas_G=2E=22?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:23:14 -0500
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
In-Reply-To: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
References: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4DEF77C2.5050504@colnodo.apc.org>
I want to propose my name,
Julián Casasbuenas G.
Director Colnodo
El 01/06/11 23:03, Jeremy Malcolm escribió:
> This is a reminder that we are again selecting a new nominating committee for
> the IGC. We need a pool of 25 nominees, from which 5 will be randomly
> selected. Any list member is eligible to put their name into the pool. So
> far we have 1 position filled out of 25. Please reply to me or Izumi if you
> are willing to put your name into the hat.
>
> Thank you to the previous committee who were Qusai AlShatti, Hempal Shrestha,
> Ian Peter, Gurumurthy K and Jacqueline Morris. They are eligible to
> renominate if they would like the opportunity to serve again.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that,
> working together with its members, serves as the only independent and
> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help
> protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> _www.consumersinternational.org _
> _Twitter @ConsumersInt _
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice
> . Don't print
> this email unless necessary.
>
--
Julian Casasbuenas G.
Director Colnodo
Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogota, Colombia
Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264
www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo
Miembro de la Asociacion para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC-
www.apc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From julian at colnodo.apc.org Wed Jun 8 09:45:14 2011
From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Juli=E1n_Casasbuenas_G=2E=22?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:45:14 -0500
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net> <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net> <4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net>
Message-ID: <4DEF7CEA.9010309@colnodo.apc.org>
There is a new version of the platform List-o (list-o.org,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/list-o/) and it works with Mailman using the
Google translation system.
Best,
Julián
El 08/06/11 07:40, Rui Correia escribió:
> Hi What happened to the translation feature that the list used to have,
> provided by by funredes? I admit I never really looked much into that
> (actually can't remember - it was quite a few years back), so I don't know how
> much human interaction it required or whether it was wholly automatic. Carlos?
> Can you weigh in on this?
>
> Surely by now that must be software to reroute postings to lists via a
> translation engine such as Google Translator? It is not ideal, but it is a
> solution and Google Translate has improved a lot over the years.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
>
>
> 2011/6/8 Ginger Paque >
>
> Hmmm... I have mixed feelings about this, even though it looks like the
> title is MSism... Multilingualism :)
>
> While I firmly believe we need to have more discussions in other
> languages, particularly Spanish, we need to be able to communicate with
> the larger community, and the common second language seems to be English.
>
> How can we manage both ideas?
> Saludos, ginger
>
> On 6/8/2011 7:20 AM, Carlos Vera wrote:
>> Ya empezo el debate.. como lo seguimos..
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>> 2011/6/8 Roxana Goldstein > >
>>
>> Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no
>> vamos a cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.
>> Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil
>> del IGF, con nada de éxito.
>> Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,
>> Roxana Goldstein
>>
>>
>> 2011/6/8 parminder > >
>>
>> Dear Bertrand,
>>
>> Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very
>> keen to get a serious discussion going on this subject, and
>> rather to the contrary of what you say, it is the
>> multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast who have run away from
>> probing questions both of (1) the principled and logical basis
>> of their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working models
>> of governance that they propose. I hope in this present
>> discussion they, and you, can answer such questions.
>>
>> I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly
>> gets spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent
>> CoE meeting during the panel discussion moderated by you.
>>
>> Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
>>
>> "what I am missing in your very critical comment ("/it is very
>> much the wrong direction/") is the proposed alternative;"
>>
>> The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of
>> representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as
>> deepening democracy or what we may also call as participatory
>> democracy (though not the anarchic versions of it which suffer
>> from the precise ill you speak of - a real workable alternative
>> model). Its institutional forms - existing and those possible in
>> the future - have been well discussed in literature, and there is
>> enough stuff about practical working models as well, including
>> some about the global space. I am ready, in fact eager, to have a
>> specific discussion on this.
>>
>> I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of
>> working models of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking
>> democracy forward rather than supplanting it. We, as in my
>> organisation, worked with the Indian government delegates to come
>> up with a clear proposal on how MAG for instance should be
>> constituted, which addresses the negatives of MSism. This part of
>> the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, which is also largely
>> contained in the contribution IT for Change made to the process.
>> Is it not specific enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring role' I
>> am eager to know what are your own views on it.
>>
>> The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of
>> your email.
>>
>> ".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently
>> under way presenting more potential for broad participation,
>> openness and "deeper democracy" (to use your formulation) than
>> using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In
>> a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different
>> from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it
>> would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?"
>>
>> First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in
>> the UN or the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires
>> huge huge improvements changes. This must be obvious from my
>> contributions to the IGC and other forums. However, my contention
>> also is that MSism as currently practised in the IG arena may
>> actually be making things worse.
>>
>> Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that
>> are less powerful and less heard otherwise into the political
>> processes. Can you honestly say that this is what the MS model in
>> IG is doing currently? I do not think so. I think it has become a
>> cover or a legitimising device for increased influence on policy
>> making of those who are already very powerful, with which I mean
>> the big business in the digital/ IT/ Internet space. There are
>> numerous examples of this, and what is more problematic is how
>> such huge transgressions to political and democratic propriety
>> are routinely responded to by 'deep silences' on the part of
>> MSism upholders. Such silences favouring the interests of the
>> powerful, as you will also see from the Spanish protests (as also
>> earlier ones in the Arab world), are the very anti-thesis of new
>> democratic processes that we would like to see take root.
>> Following are but a very few examples of what MSism in IG space
>> is really showing up to be....
>>
>> 1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely
>> dominates the discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into
>> specific details here but am happy to discuss this further if you
>> so want. Developing country gov reps have consistently raised
>> this issue in their private conversations about the IGF and the
>> MAG. Very often this is the first and the main issue they raise,
>> and I have to agree with them.
>>
>> 2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was
>> supposed to. Then there is this French presidents digital
>> advisory council made exclusively of big business.
>>
>> 3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed
>> regulation, together practically wrote the net neutrality
>> legislation of the the county which is the digital capital of the
>> world. One would, today, still think it impossible that the top
>> drug company and the top private hospital chain in the US
>> 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text secretively is a different
>> thing) come up with the default health policy draft, even in the
>> US. This is an instance of the kind of 'firsts' that the IG world
>> is contributing to our political systems, and the MS discourse
>> certainly has something to so with it.
>>
>> 4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a
>> practical monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who
>> acquired this business by buying off the incumbent public sector
>> company through means that have been severely questioned. Again a
>> first in the name of MSism.
>>
>> 5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital
>> content companies, interested in the huge public education
>> 'market' of India, quite ingeniously managed to become the key
>> and driving participants of an 'officially' mandated MS process
>> of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs in schools' policy. The
>> draft that came out was of course on the expected lines. It took
>> a huge amount of work from organisation like ours to get the
>> drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But such
>> things have not stopped.... So it is not for the joy of
>> contrarinian-ism that I offer critiques to MSism, this has had
>> central implications to my organisation's political struggles.
>>
>> 6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting
>> only of big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently
>> holds consultations where only these big business reps are
>> invited. (see for a recent meeting of such kind
>> http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf
>> ). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any
>> other department in India.
>>
>> The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with
>> MSism, to quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the
>> weight of some actors, the north-south unbalances and the
>> representation of the unrepresented' , one needs to know clearly
>> what is being done about them. Merely mentioning them as a
>> footnote is of little use to those whom these issues really
>> bother. What I see is that there seems not even the readiness to
>> debate these issues, much less do anything about them, which to
>> me confirms my hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much
>> what goes for MSism in the IG arena.
>>
>> Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is -
>> are they ready to have their countries governed through the same
>> kind of hazy MSism as they recommend for global governance? If
>> not why this discrimination - democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is
>> it because global democracy brings the danger of global
>> redistributions with it, and MSism on the other hand helps
>> promote Northern businesses establish even greater global
>> dominance and thus creates transfer channels in directions
>> opposite to what globally democratic political systems will tend
>> to do. Is this not the actual reason for Northern governments'
>> enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not at places
>> where they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind
>> the 'friendly governments' discourse frequently heard on this list.
>>
>> Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing the article.
>>>
>>> Two points on your remarks:
>>> - fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of
>>> participatory democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new
>>> tools can be invented;
>>> - I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding
>>> the current modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of
>>> them do deserve attention (such as the risks of capture, the
>>> weight of some actors, the north-south unbalances and the
>>> representation of the unrepresented); however, what I am missing
>>> in your very critical comment ("/it is very much the wrong
>>> direction/") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as they are,
>>> aren't the experiences currently under way presenting more
>>> potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper
>>> democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only
>>> intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ?
>>>
>>> In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so
>>> different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance,
>>> that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Bertrand
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308
> Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308
>
> I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers
> Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos
> meus números sul-africanos
>
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
> Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> _______________
>
--
Julian Casasbuenas G.
Director Colnodo
Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogota, Colombia
Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264
www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo
Miembro de la Asociacion para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC-
www.apc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
-------------- 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
From avri at ella.com Wed Jun 8 10:17:06 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:17:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To: <20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net> <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net> <4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net> <20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <5FCCB41C-1E31-490E-A0F2-93EE017E444C@ella.com>
hi,
well it separates whose who are willing to cut and paste into
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/
and those who aren't.
a.
On 8 Jun 2011, at 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Näinhän se on, mutta vaikka minä ymmärränkin kohtuullisesti myös
> espanjaa, en ole vakuuttunut tällaisen demonstraation hyödyllisyydestä.
------
Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!
____________________________________________________________
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
From avri at ella.com Wed Jun 8 10:25:57 2011
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:25:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net> <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net> <4DEF6B01.8010201@paque.net> <20110608124506.GF5879@baribal.tarvainen.info> <4DEF70F7.2010407@paque.net>
Message-ID: <68EEBBB3-7C94-46C2-9535-2B9143BF88F3@ella.com>
Hi,
I find the automatic translations quite usable and improving all the time. And they ask for correction and help, which means that by using them, we can help improve them.
The problem with the professional translations is the time they take. That delay makes communication difficult as well. Also the professional translator needs to be subject learned otherwise even a professional translation can be unintelligible.
a.
On 8 Jun 2011, at 09:06, Roxana Goldstein wrote:
> Si exacto, y sigo en mi idioma porque es en él en el que tengo mayor potencia expresiva, y mayor capacidad de comunicación.
>
> Por ejemplo, cuando uno intenta participar en inglés y no domina el inglés, por ejemplo en algún debate del IGF caucus sociedad civil, los angloparlantes nativos directamente descartan el mensaje, ya que les resulta más incómodo leer un mensaje que no está en perfecto inglés. Es algo instintivo, no digo mal intencionado, pero que termina reforzando la exclusión de los no angloparlantes nativos en el debate global.
>
> Mi experiencia con traductores automáticos en otras listas es que son ineficientes. El producto de esas traducciones muchas veces es confuso, con errores sintácticos, y se pierde contenido y el sentido de los mensajes.
>
> Además, los mensajes resultan dificultosos para su lectura, lo que hace que seguramente sean descartados o dejados de soslayo por la mayoría de los que los reciben.
>
> Una estrategia auténticamente multilingualista requiere traducción profesional, no automática. Y requiere profundizar en el acercamiento, comprensión y respeto de los mundos expresados por los diversos idiomas. Algo más que sólo traducción, pero que debe ser parte ineludible de una buena traducción.
>
> Seguimos,
> Roxana
>
>
>
>
> 2011/6/8 Ginger Paque
> Exactly, Tapani--I have no idea what you said, but your point is clear :)
>
> During WSIS, I was a member of the WFUNA (World Federation of United Nations Associations) Task Force on WSIS. Our home working languages were Danish, Spanish, Urdu, and six others, and no one did their IG/WSIS work at home in English. BUT we did all of our TF work in English, because it was the only possible way for us communicate.
>
> That was years ago. Translation services have improved. What practical steps can we take for language inclusion?
> Can we include some kind of translation as suggested by Rui/Carlos?
> Should we have different threads in different languages?
> Should the subject line indicate the language as well as the topic?
>
> Has anyone found a working solution on another list?
>
> On 6/8/2011 7:45 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:38:01AM -0300, Roxana Goldstein (goldstein.roxana at gmail.com
>> ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> querida Ginger,
>>>
>>> Si entiendo, pero si no hay debate en español, sólo pueden participar
>>> aquellos que "dominan" el ingles´, no solo quienes lo manejan medianamente.
>>> Y esto implica no sólo las reglas del idioma. sino sus modismos, sus
>>> connotaciones y denotaciones, su cosmovisión.
>>>
>>> El debate en otros idiomas en necesario y requiere soporte económico, de
>>> recursos humanos, etc.
>>>
>> Näinhän se on, mutta vaikka minä ymmärränkin kohtuullisesti myös
>> espanjaa, en ole vakuuttunut tällaisen demonstraation hyödyllisyydestä.
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
------
Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!
____________________________________________________________
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
From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 8 10:38:47 2011
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:38:47 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
In-Reply-To:
References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C042@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173CAE8A37@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Having seen a video of Kroes' speech at the EuroDIG, it is evident that the EC is no longer interested in multistakeholderism in Internet governance.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On
> Behalf Of Divina MEIGS
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
>
>
> Dear Wolfgang
>
> The IGF was not mentioned even once during the e-G8... So combining them
> in the future might be something to bring up for preparations of next e-
> G8, if any
>
> It could be an interesting outcome to have a major endorsement by the G8
> states of a concerted strategy around the critical ressources of the
> internet, especially if expanded at the G20 level, which is unlikely.
> But it would have to be truly multistakeholder or it would totally
> unacceptable ...
>
> My two cents
> divina
>
> Le 26/05/11 10:26, « Kleinwächter, Wolfgang »
> a écrit :
>
> > Thanks again Divina for the detailed and very useful reporting.
> >
> > Just one point: If the eG8 will take place annually this will push the
> > IGF in a competetive situation. Is there an option to combine them in
> the future?
> > Interesting point.
> >
> > I remember that as a result of the G 7 meeting in Okinawa in 2000 the
> > "G7 DotForce" was established as an outcome (and triggered the
> > establishment of the UN ICT Task Force which was much broader then the
> > G7 DotForce. A couple of years later DotForce became integrated inti
> the UNICTTF. :-))).
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Divina MEIGS
> > Gesendet: Do 26.05.2011 10:17
> > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] E-G8 second day reporting
> >
> >
> > Dear all
> > I forgot to add that i was able to make a final intervention at 7pm,
> > emphasizing the fact that civil society deplored the absence of human
> > rights principles in the recommendations that they were ready to carry
> > to Deauville (besides enlightening them on the meaning of
> "governance")...
> > divina
> >
> >
> > Le 26/05/11 10:02, « divina meigs » a écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> > e-G8 day two
> > Day two was more broken up than day one, so I'll go quickly through
> > the various sessions, to concentrate on the summary of recommendations
> > that took place in the end (You can follow the details on line).
> > Please note that the whole thing was a relatively futile exercise,
> > given the fact that most of the
> > G8 documents are readied months in advance. However, there will be a
> > delegation of 5 members from the e-G8 who are supposed to bring back
> > the results/recommendations to the heads of states in Deauville. The
> > delegation is composed of Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Eric Schmidt
> > (Google), Maurice Lévy (Publicis), Yuri Milner (Digital Sky
> > Technologies), Stéphane Richard (Orange) and Hiroshi Mikitani
> > (Rakuten)-a very representative selection of powerful male
> billionaires.
> >
> >
> > 1-conversation with Neelie Kroes (European Digital Agenda
> > Commissioner) some issues require rules, that can be applied by
> > governments when the private sector doesn't act. These rules should be
> > global. The G8 should take them seriously, make decisions and review
> > them. It is an urgent decision
> >
> > 2- plenary 5 : fostering innovation
> > Good presentation of the stakes by Lessig, but the rest of the
> > discussion less interesting and no solutions offered. Lack of small
> > companies made it difficult to hear voice of incumbents
> >
> > 3- plenary 6 : digital transformation (of traditional business) no
> > doubt among the participants that welfare packages and worker
> > protection are gone and not worth defending. Public policy will have
> > to adapt to such "painful" social perspectives and move towards jobs
> > for young people based on mobility and no protection. Big companies
> > are important because they influence small businesses that are part of
> > their supply chain (75% of growth on internet is brought by old
> > business). E-learning is a new mode for self-training and
> > self-organizing. Public service obligations are an obsolete form of
> > regulation and public service corporations should take the "public
> > service test" ... micro-segmentation is the way to go: "serve the
> segment to one"; "businesses have to become democracies too"
> >
> > 4- workshop 1 (theme 3): electronic liberty (workshop in presence of
> > Nadine Wahab, Egyptian activist) interesting comments on Google's role
> > in Egypt (meant to keep internet open for business, not to help the
> > revolution). Importance of freedom of expression announced as key for
> > business. Social media as part of toolbox for electoral campaigns. For
> > Nadine Wahab, the organization of civil society came first, the social
> > networks came second in the Egyptian movement. People will always
> > choose pacific solutions and peace to terrorism. Transparency as best
> > tool for fighting censorship (Perry Barlow from the floor). Democratic
> > countries have to avoid double-standards. Role of companies (twitter)
> > : defend the user's rights to defend himself. G8 should make internet
> > access a human right
> >
> > 5-wokshop 2 (theme 2): Disinter media (the press): only in the
> > presence of top newspapers with specialized content to sell. Rather
> > happy about themselves, though they made the initial mistake of
> > offering their content online for free. Backtracking on this by having
> > single cost of content, with multiple outlets. Repurposing of stories
> > for a global audience. "content defines us, not the means of
> > distribuiton" Sulzberger NYT)
> >
> > 6-workshop 3 (theme 3): Data dilemma (privacy):
> > several definitions of privacy, but consensus on the users' right to
> > control information about themselves. Confrontation of EU and US
> > models: the European one not enough enforced and therefore not
> > respected, the US one enforced by FTC and respected...
> >
> > 7-Closing conversation with Mark Zuckerberg: social design will be
> > leading aspect of internet future (example of gaming), being "grounded
> > on reality"; doesn't believe in network effects; the Arab revolution
> > is "not a Facebook thing, it is an internet thing" and what is
> necessary is organized people.
> >
> > 8-Closing plenary: there were several bullet points that recapped each
> > plenary and workshop (to be found online). Among the dominant ones:
> > *private sector is faster than governments
> > *job creation is done by small corporations
> > *governments should provide access but not regulate content
> > and focus on job creation
> >
> > **"governance needs to link business, civil society and government"
> > WAS SCRATCHED AS NOBODY UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT MEANS !! AND I HAD TO
> > INTERVENE LATER TO ASK FOR IT TO BE MAINTAINED, IN A SPIRIT OF
> > MULTISTAKEHOLDERISM THAT CHARACTERIZES INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN
> > ALL THE OTHER FORA OF THE PLANET...
> >
> > *expression is not synonymous with property (might be
> > scratched in the end)
> > *"governments must help manage social dislocations that
> > will make the workplace more flexible but also more precarious" (might
> be scratched)
> > *G8 should discuss harmonisation of rules between countries
> > for enterntainment (IP rights)
> > *mobile smart phones are dominated by 2 or 3 gatekeepers
> > and this should require "strong antitrust oversight"
> > *publishing governement data on line is a great start but
> > is badly done.
> > *eliminate software patents (definitely on the way of being
> > scratched) -came out of "disrupters workshop"
> > *privacy legislation may restrict free speech. It needs
> > care
> >
> > additional recommendations by the panel:
> > -big companies are good role models
> > -rapid response in case of breakdowns
> > -promote investment not regulation
> > -rules of society should apply to internet
> > -enable students with digital skills
> > -more organized participation from NGOs
> >
> > General feeling: some issues like security, IP rights are emerging but
> > nobody seems to have a solution; nothing about cloud computing;
> > nothing about risks in case of breakdown; nothing about public goods
> > and open source or open data... general consensus for e-G8 to be made
> > permanent (one voice saying every over year)
> >
> > Divina Frau-Meigs, Paris May 25th
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 10:38:57 2011
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:38:57 +0300
Subject: [governance] MSism and democracy
In-Reply-To: <4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
References: <4DE7856A.3090004@itforchange.net>
<4DEF02CE.2060208@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:
On 6/8/11, parminder wrote:
> Dear Bertrand,
>
> Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen
> to get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the
> contrary of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast
> who have run away from probing questions both of (1) the principled and
> logical basis of their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working
> models of governance that they propose. I hope in this present
> discussion they, and you, can answer such questions.
I for one have answered # 1 and 2 several times, it just seems that you
ignore the truth of my replies.
>
> I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it mostly gets
> spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting
> during the panel discussion moderated by you.
>
> Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is
>
> "what I am missing in your very critical comment ("/it is very much the
> wrong direction/") is the proposed alternative;"
>
> The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of
> representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening
> democracy or what we may also call as participatory democracy
I see the current IG regimes as examples of participatory democracy.
I am doing it as I type this email, participating remotely in the
AfriNIC Public Policy meeting,
>
> Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are
> less powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can
> you honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing
> currently?
I can.
look at http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-14/index.php/register/participant-list
Do you think that Farm Radio International, SchoolNet, Village Telco,
Mission Aviation Fellowship, Freedom Fone, Kenya Telecentre Network,
World Vision Niger, Transparency International, Biovision Foundation,
Grameen Foundation, Centre for Internet and Society, etc on the above
url ARE NOT examples of less powerful voices?
I do not think so. I think it has become a cover or a
> legitimising device for increased influence on policy making of those
> who are already very powerful, with which I mean the big businessin the
> digital/ IT/ Internet space. There are numerous examples of this, and
> what is more problematic is how such huge transgressions to political
> and democratic propriety are routinely responded to by 'deep silences'
> on the part of MSism upholders.
I've never been silent on this ;-)
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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
From rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp Wed Jun 8 11:52:35 2011
From: rajendrapoudel at gha.or.jp (Rajendra Poudel)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:52:35 +0900
Subject: [governance] Nominees required for nomcom selection pool
In-Reply-To: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
References: <4DE70BA9.8080701@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: