[governance] MSism and democracy

McTim dogwallah at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 01:24:22 EDT 2011

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:56 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 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'.

That's right, as we are the CS Internet Governance Caucus, and not the
"talking about the shape of the table" caucus that we seem to have

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.

We spend too much time on the "institutional possibilities" instead of
the broader IG issues, which is what I find irksome.

> 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?

>From your neck of the woods, I would suggest you look at the InternetNZ model.

 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.

not necessarily.  I firmly believe that governments have far too much
say in the IGF processes, so i don't support it as policy shaping.  i
do support it as policy discussion and capacity building however.

 However, I have heard you consistently oppose any such
> thing, and oppose it bitterly. Can you explain this paradox?

see above.

 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.

see above.


> 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.

It's architected to make money, like many dot-coms.

Much of it IS open-source:



If it was closed, there would be very little eco-system around it, and
it would have already become MySpace/Friendster.

I just don't believe that it, as a private entity, it needs a global
treaty to oversee what it can and can't do.


"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:

For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

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

More information about the Governance mailing list