[governance] critique of the IBSA proposal

[parminder]

On Thursday 22 September 2011 02:38 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Parminder sez in response to Drake:
>
> 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
>
> */ /*
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] Really? /*
>

Milton, you are labouring to respond to the point I never made 
(including using bad language in your previous email).

I *never* said that 'Milton' opposed or resisted a discussion on 
enhanced cooperation (EC), or more generally on International public 
policy mechanisms. Can you go back to my email and show me where I said 
this about 'MIlton'.

In face of sudden flurry of emails claiming governments of the South do 
not want to discuss EC openly, especially at the IGF, I responded by 
showing that it was not governments of the South but many other actors 
who blocked/ resisted such an attempt. Is it not a fact? I also said  
that *many* civil society actors now suddenly very alive to the need of 
dicussing EC in the IGF, did not seem so eager earlier on, when attempts 
to get the EC subject on IGF agenda was made. This is also a fact. and I 
needed to state these facts in face of this new onslaught about the 
evilness of developing country governments (and, perhaps, also other 
civil society members) when it was simply not based on facts (and, more 
importantly for me, served the agenda of protecting the global IG status 
quo).

*Now, it is now possible for me to put the 'Milton exception disclaimer' 
in everything I say.* One swallow  does not make a summer. I know you 
have been keen on, more or less, any discussion in the IGF. I know we 
worked together for the IGF workshop on Framework convention on the 
Internet (though you now seem to have changed views on that, which, 
though a different question, I did raise in my email, and i dont say 
people dont have the right to change views). We worked together in the 
dynamic colation on Internet frameworks of principles... and yes, I 
exactly remember your contribution to the EC discussion in Hyderabad, 
and also remember precisely which part of the hall you were sitting in. 
This is quite beside the larger point. Though of course you have a right 
to bring on record your historical positions.

I will respond to the substantive points separately.

parminder












> *//*
>
> */ /*
>
> */Just for fun, I dug up the transcript and you will see below my 
> intervention and the response of the U.S. State Dept representative./*
>
> */Note also that I specifically tried to get a statement from 
> Parminder, but for some reason (cough) the moderator moved on./*
>
> */ /*
>
> */<Hyderabad IGF Main session on "Arrangements for Internet 
> Governance." /*
>
> */http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/AfIGGN.html/*
>
> */ /*
>
> */>>EMILY TAYLOR:   Thank you very much. Milton, do you have a question?/*
>
> */>>MILTON MUELLER:   Yes, I do. I actually have a question./*
>
> */Okay.  We have two distinct concepts of enhanced cooperation up 
> here.  The one that I understood was articulated by Mr. Lucero and to 
> some extent by Parminder Singh, saying, to put it in a concrete 
> context, that ...enhanced cooperation was trying to solve the problem 
> of governmental role in Internet policy-making. And Mr. Lucero 
> proposed a specific principle which I thought was very interesting, 
> and I'd like to hear Mr. Beaird's and Mr. Singh's reaction to it.  
> [Lucero] said if governments are not involved, such as in IETF or the 
> NRO, that's fine.  But if governments are -- if you have an 
> international organization which only one government or a select group 
> of governments is involved, that's a problem, that's something that 
> enhanced cooperation should be trying to fix./*
>
> */ /*
>
> */>>EMILY TAYLOR:   Dick, would you like to react to that?  So the 
> challenge is that only a few or even one government is involved./*
>
> */Can I have your comments, please?/*
>
> */ /*
>
> */>>RICHARD BEAIRD:   Thank you very much./*
>
> */The view that I take in this is that if we have learned anything as 
> a result of the WSIS process and our experience since 2005, is that 
> it's precisely much more complex than to articulate a problem as we 
> did in 2003, that there is a one-country problem. In fact, what we're 
> dealing with -- and here I come back -- which I think the 39 ministers 
> that met in Seoul, including representative from Brazil, which may not 
> have signed the declaration, but was there, understood, which is that 
> we're talking about an Internet economy, which is a much broader 
> concept than we had previously, which is certainly much more -- 
> broader than simply talking about domain names./*
>
> */Domain names is a facilitator, is a tool within that economy. 
> Governments are engaged in this process at every level.  And my dear 
> friend Everton has given us some excellent examples of where 
> governments are involved. Let me give you one more point to add to 
> this, which is that -- the point being is that governments are 
> involved at every level of the Internet because it is now, we 
> understand, to be an Internet economy.  But, further, if there is one 
> thing we also learned from the WSIS process, when governments came 
> together in 2005, the one thing that dominates the documents that are 
> there, both out of Geneva, but certainly out of Tunis, It's 
> e-government. /*
>
> */It's how the Internet, used by governments -- and, by the way, 
> governments by all studies are the early adopters of applications and 
> uses of the Internet -- is making possible services that had not been 
> made possible before, prior to the Internet.  And that governments, 
> when they came together at the highest levels said this is probably 
> the most important thing for us to talk about. And I think that's the 
> point that needs to be made over and over again in these discussions, 
> which happen at fora such as the IGF which may be rather focused, is 
> that the world outside, in every region of the world, governments are 
> engaged.  And that at every level of society, governments, civil 
> society, and the private sector, they are all engaged, and they will 
> find their own level of engagement depending upon their cultural and 
> political context. So my response is that be more positive and be more 
> observant of what, in fact, has happened, and understand that we are 
> all now a part of the Internet economy. /*
>
> */ /*
>
> */<end transcript> /*
>
> */ /*
>
> */Now from that exchange I draw 5 conclusions:/*
>
> */1) /**/There were 2 views of EC as an issue to be discussed 
> expressed on that panel, one of them the "hard" focus on the role of 
> states, the other the mushy one that considers any post-WSIS dialogue 
> to be EC./*
>
> */2) /**/It should be evident from the above which one of those 2 
> views I took: I eagerly embraced discussing the harder approach/*
>
> */3) /**/I was not uncomfortable with a robust discussion of EC, as 
> Parminder and Everton Lucero (then of govt of Brazil) understood it/*
>
> */4) /**/The US govt was _very_ uncomfortable with that issue and 
> tried to divert it to a discussion of e-government/*
>
> */5) /**/I was willing to confront the USG on this/*
>
> */ /*
>
> */So. What are we to make of Parminder's posturing as an oppressed 
> developing world innocent ignored if not trampled by Northern 
> hegemonists in civil society? It is a bit hard to swallow. It seems to 
> me to be a self-reinforcing act of divisiveness. /*
>
> */ /*
>
> */To press further, the discussion of EC makes it clear that one can 
> "equalize" the imbalance in governments' role either by making 
> governance more "inter-national" (i.e. intergovernmental) or by 
> "de-nationalizing" it (i./* */e., relying on organically developed 
> institutions). Lucero made comments directly and astutely recognizing 
> that option. Parminder didn't. Why is the de-nationalizing option 
> never recognized and discussed by Parminder? Why is it always framed 
> as North vs. South instead? Is it because you want to pit South 
> against North so you can ride a wave of resentment into some new form 
> of global power? Or are your politics about creating a just, free, 
> flexible regime of global Internet governance that can be supported by 
> anyone in any world region/economy/etc.? /*
>
> */ /*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110922/562fa6b1/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