[governance] MSism and democracy

[McTim]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:46 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> McTim, my response are below
>
> On Wednesday 08 June 2011 08:08 PM, McTim wrote:
>

>
> I dont ignore 'the truth of your replies'. The problem you always seem to
> speaking about a personal definition of 'internet governance' which I dont
> share and neither does largely  the world, as also the IGC. For you IG is
> developing standards, protocols and processes for management of critical
> internal resources, or the logical layers of the Internet, and *nothing
> else*.

Simply not true.

>
> Your 'working models' correspond *only* to this narrow definition of
> Internet governance. And I am almost always referring to the broader, more
> political IG issues. You never ever acknowledge the governance needs of
> these issues which most concern most of us here, much less come up with
> working models for them.

I have often suggested that we use the same model used in narrow
governance issues for the broader IG realm.

 So, you are as guilty of the 'deep silences' I
> spoke about. And your repeated references to 'I am right now working on the
> Afrinic list' and 'why dont all of you come and join us' simply do not speak
> to the issue I am raising here.

It does.  You spoke about "Deeper or participatory democracy is about
getting in voices that are less powerful and less heard otherwise into
the political processes."

I was simply showing you that those CS voices are being heard.


>
> Tunis agenda had a good phrase for the distinction we are talking about '
> public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day
> technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international
> public policy issues.'
>
> Maybe we can call the 'the day-to-day technical and operational matters,
> that do not impact on international public policy issues' as Internet
> Administration (IA) to distinguish them from the wider and more political IG
> issues that are the main concern of most of us, and of the IGF etc.
> However, before this semantic (or is it just semantic?) problem is sorted
> out between us, I cant see how a meaningful dialogue can be pursued.


I don't know if it is just semantic or not, it seems that you have
suggested (in the past) that the way Facebook operates, for example
ought to be subject to international oversight of some kind, whereas I
see their policies as largely "operational" in nature.


-- 
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