[governance] critique of the IBSA proposal

[parminder]

On Sunday 18 September 2011 05:05 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Marilia
>
> I'm glad to see this initiative finally coming out into the sunlight, 
> as there hasn't been much publicly accessible information on what you 
> folks have been up to.

"what you folks have been up to!!!"

Bill, you are holding your nose, rather than do a discussion, but lets 
get on.... (the hegemony of discourse, with the 'obvious' good 
world/people versus evil world/ people distinctions)

>  I've raised it at several events, including a WSIS Forum workshop I 
> organized (which included Alvaro from the Brazilian government), but 
> have been unable to elicit much discussion from any side.

No idea, what you wanted to elicit and what was Alvaro and others not 
forthcoming about. As you know, Brazilians sponsored a main session on 
enhanced cooperation at the IGF, when i really dont remember any special 
enthusiasm for such a discussion of many civil society members who now 
seem outraged that developing countries dont want to discuss 
Internet-related public policy mechanisms openly... This is entirely a 
made up  thing.... Instead, who did not want to discuss what kind of 
things openly at the IGF, and which government were their supporters, if 
often publicly silent, is rather well known.

>  While I don't favor UN-based intergovernmental control,

When OECD does it, it is 'policy making', and the civil society 
enthusiastically engages with it, when UN seeks to do it, it is 
'control' . This is amusing!! The power of the discourse!!

> the idea's been floating in the wind and configuring perceptions and 
> dialogue for so long that it would be useful to finally hear the 
> proponents get up in public and make their case about what problems 
> require such a solution,

Exactly the same problems that OECD, CoE etc think 'require a solution', 
and are intensively working on; to whose work in this area, there never 
seems to have been an objection. Every of their document speaks of 
urgent need of frameworks of principles, global agreements etc. The same 
problems, and similar sought solutions, just more democratic and 
inclusive.....

I have thrown this challenge at 'you guys' - to borrow your term - often 
in this list but without response, and I repeat it.

*On what basis do you oppose, say, if  the EXACT mechanism that OECD follows

  in policy making, framework development, etc in the area of 
international internet-related public policies, with its exact 
mechanisms of multi-stakeholder participation also thrown in,

was to instituted in the UN.... which simply means it would be 
democratic, a prime civil society value, i would think......*

It is by answering clearly such direct questions, and getting into a 
full debate over them that constitutes openness and transparency, not 
just by using the power of the dominant discourse and vocabulary to 
condemn others to evilness of being closed and non-transparent, and 
arrogating to oneself all the corresponding good qualities....

parminder



> how it could possibly work, why the benefits would outweigh the costs, 
> how consensus could be achieved and how you'd proceed if it cannot, 
> and so on.  That certainly did not happen within the WGIG with respect 
> to the three "oversight" models some of the government reps put on the 
> table (which, BTW, the caucus strongly opposed at the time).  It would 
> be better to finally have an open multistakeholder debate on the 
> merits than for the IBSA governments to take it to their summit and 
> into the UN GA without the benefit of this reality check.
>
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>
>> 2) During the next IGF, government representatives have accepted to 
>> take part in several workshops organized by CS that are discussing 
>> IGF improvement, when they will certainly be able to talk about 
>> IBSA's aims.  So the discussion will not bypass the IGF as you said. 
>> I hope you will be there to raise your issues.
>
> There will be more opportunities than this.  For example, I intend to 
> raise it again in the main session on CIR, which I'm co-moderating 
> with Emily Taylor, and in my workshop on institutional choice in GIG 
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178>, 
> which is a feeder for the CIR session.  Tulika from the Indian 
> government will be speaking on both, as will Alice, Anriette, and 
> Fiona (plus others here who are on or the other, e.g. Avri, Jeanette, 
> Patrik..).  So let's get it out in the open and hear what people have 
> to say either way.  While such a debate will be divisive, a UN GA 
> proposal that hasn't been openly debated would be much more so.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
> ***************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake 
> <http://www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake>
> www.williamdrake.org
> ****************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110921/09379874/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