[governance] MSism and democracy

[parminder]

On Monday 13 June 2011 01:00 AM, McTim wrote:
> 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.

So many times, in middle of key IG discussions focussed on the 'larger' 
IG issues (and the corresponding forums or institutional possibilities)  
and not the technical administration kind, you have asked us to leave 
aside those things and come to where 'real IG takes place'. These are 
your exact words that pop up so very often on this list. But now you are 
disclaiming that you dont consider stuff outside this narrow IG 
definition as not the 'real IG'. Well, in any case, this is some 
progress and we can try to build on it.
>> 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.

Have you? This again confounds me. Can you re state those models you 
have in mind to address the issues of the 'broader IG realm', the kind 
of issues that are on the IGF's agenda? Since you support 
multistakeholderism (MSism), if you really were for extending such MS 
models to addressing these 'broader IG issues' you should be supporting 
increasing the policy shaping role or power of the IGF. However, I have 
heard you consistently oppose any such thing, and oppose it bitterly. 
Can you explain this paradox? And so if IGF does not fit your idea of a 
MS model to address and help solve these broader IG issues, what model 
are you suggesting as above. please elaborate.

>   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.
They may be heard for rather narrow technical admin work, but not for 
real big IG stuff which are decided among the big business and the 
powerful governments of the North. That us our struggle, and your 
general contribution to us is to advice us to leave that debate or 
struggle and come to 'where real IG takes place', by which you mean the 
kind of work that gets done on the elists involved with technical 
administration of the Internet.
>
>> 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.
Good you took up this example. While you think Facebook's policies and 
its architecture, which determines and constrains a considerable share 
of global interactions today is merely a 'operational' issue, I do think 
it is an outstandingly important social, political, cultural and 
economic issue. and I think most on this list agree. Vittorio posted an 
email on another list a couple of months back about how kids in Italy 
nowadays often have only facebook on their mobiles and nothing else. For 
them facebook is the Internet. And if it bothers you not at all that the 
facebook space is proprietary, closed and non-transparent, and thus 
expectedly is architectured to suit powerful economic and political 
interests, then indeed we do have major differences.

Parminder



>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110613/e8dc73e6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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