[governance] ITU Broadband Commission

[Riaz K Tayob]

Parminder

Thanks for this input and analysis.

For me what is important is that you and others continue to push for 
genuinely democratic participation that ensures a concept of fairness 
(that is fidelity to weaker members of society). It will not do to have 
formal liberal/progressive assumptions of equality. When looked at in 
this light, and from the tenor of most discussions on this topic, one 
can see that the "threat" to fairness is really from those who espouse 
(?pseudo-) liberal values.

The balance of forces are tipped against fairness in large order (it is 
almost as if one has to explain the point that in "market" oriented 
system those with money exercise disproportionate power - as you pointed 
out on multi-stakeholderism). If one recalls the dynamic coalitions on 
Intellectual Property and the kinds of discussions that were had by the 
luminaries given pride of place, we can see that the predictive value 
(or rather relevance) of these sessions were rather pedestrian or poor - 
and now we see very real threats to the internet coming from the North 
(for export to the South). As far as guardians of a liberal and humane 
order, I personally conclude that Weapons of Mass Distraction are 
typically deployed so that an innocuous safety valve is allowed, while 
"real" issues get sidelined. Contextualised in a non-binding format of 
the IGF, this reflects a reactionary predilection of enormous proportions.

But there is a good core of people here that question the dominant 
debates (and most importantly the /framing/ of debates) that ensures 
that these (?pseudo-) liberals do not hold the monopoly on the debates. 
In this way it is at best a rear guard action to prevent a complete rout 
of the fairness brigade. It is a pity that more people do not see the 
relevance of the South positions you advocated, which in large order has 
been vindicated. While I have problems with Zizek, he puts the 
predicament of our times for progressive people-centred (not to be 
confused with consumer-centred) as: _catastrophic but not serious._

Americans can now be strip and body cavity searched for any infraction, 
while ACTA continues in the fine tradition of 'the best democracy can 
buy' while the likes of you, Guerstein, Mueller, etc have to insist on 
arguments based on sound reasoning that does not gain traction. Perhaps 
this is just politics, but those who push this play toward the norms of 
power, not those of the public interest. There is a kind of 
post-modernist bliss in the framing of the (?pseudo-) liberal arguments 
- where everyone (or almost everyone) has a right to be heard, and that 
solves everything. This is interest based politics, and largely an 
abandonment of reason, no matter what the sophists might think, and 
reasoning is the ticket for the civil in civil society i.e. you are 
playing in uncivil society. And if one is merely engaged in this kind of 
stuff, then reason is a hostage to powerful interests. Implicit in all 
of this is the contention that there is US (or rich country) 
exceptionalism, which to some extent is true, but increasingly less so.

Collective processes have their merits, but perhaps it is time for some 
of those with concerns that are shared North and South to develop a 
framework (for collective action) to deepen (instead of broaden) their 
issue-engagement in these processes to avoid least common denominator 
outcomes. Gurstein for eg on CSO participation has made some interesting 
proposals that perhaps can be the basis for parallel processes so that 
the (?pseudo-) liberals can be saved from themselves. The system needs 
contradiction and antagonism, that is simply the evolutionary (not to be 
confused with Social Darwinism) process of capitalism, which of itself 
is a revolutionary force...

The IPR debates and issues are merely a reflection of what happened to 
African and other countries on the health debates for access to 
medicines. There we were talking about a death sentence for brown 
people, and the internet issues are somewhat less violent, which makes 
for a more difficult case to make. Of course Americans after 
strengthening these forces (diplomats, bureaucrats, officials) in their 
countries left them open to abuse in their health care debates (a most 
inefficient outcome - USers spend more than any advanced country with 
poorer health outcomes). But somehow the connection is not made, that if 
you strengthen forces that can intimidate and shame the likes of Mandela 
that these forces will come and bite you. A similar process is underway 
on the net - with the self-righteous, well oiled and well heeled 
guardians (aka apologists) in tow.

For your and others rather lonely battle, as I am just a useless lurker, 
perhaps take solace in the Mead'ian quote: *Never doubt that a small 
group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it 
is the only thing that ever has.* This is a fine American tradition of 
peaceful (and unlike me you have grace and charm) change that I hope you 
continue to claim and deny the monopoly of action to the pesudo-liberals.

Of course, I am being deliberately provocative and not very practical,

Keep up the excellent work my friend...

Peace

Riaz

On 2012/04/04 02:46 PM, parminder wrote:
> John,
>
> Thanks for your engagement. However, as you suspected, your assertions 
> are indeed controversial/  problematic.
>
> Your advice is not to go into formal aspects of a governance/ policy 
> mechanism but only focus on the output side. I would come to the 
> output side but lets first deal with the importance of formal aspects. 
> To those who protested against Mubarak's regime, would you have 
> advised that instead of fighting for democracy against 
> authoritarianism, they should look at and argue by the work and 
> outputs of regime, and not its formal qualities. It is, for instance, 
> possible to argue that Mubarak may have kept a tighter leash on 
> fundamentalist groups than the emerging democracy seems to be able to 
> keep......
>
> Closer home, since apparently you believe in multistakeholderism, 
> would you agree to a governance system that is not open, 
> participative, transparent etc although it seem not to have any 
> particularly disagreeable output? In fact, the IG civil society - 
> including the IGC - seems to spend so much time on just the issue of 
> multistakeholderism that some of us would want it to get more directly 
> into substantive issues.
>
>  So, the question is, why does impatience with formal aspects of 
> governance/ policy regimes show only when democratic forms, values and 
> norms are being spoken of - like conflict of interest, keeping 
> powerful private interests out of policy making etc.
>
> Do you really think that it is  a good/ acceptable idea to have 
> telecoms dominate a policy body on telecom? Would you accept it in 
> your own country? Would your compatriots accept it in your country? On 
> the same logic, would you accept a health policy body dominated by 
> pharma companies - at your country level, and at the WHO? Simple 
> direct questions going very much to the heart of the issue which I 
> hope you will answer.
>
> parminder
>
> On Tuesday 03 April 2012 05:18 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:20 AM, parminder wrote:
>>> Many people take IG's multistakeholderism, as it is practised, to be 
>>> but a trojan horse for mega corporates to enter and dominate policy 
>>> spaces, and their perception may not be entirely misplaced. Civil 
>>> society needs  to do more to dispel this impression, but sadly it 
>>> doesnt...
>>
>> Parminder, Jean-Louis -
>>
>> I know this may be controversial, but rather than focusing the titles 
>> of those leading this
>> effort, wouldn't it be more practical to comment on the actual 
>> work, and how it does or
>> doesn't meet the needs of civil society?
>>
>> They have laid out four goals:
>>
>>> •   Target 1: Making broadband policy universal. By 2015, all 
>>> countries should have a national broadband plan or strategy or 
>>> include broadband in their Universal Access / Service Definitions.
>>>
>>> •   Target 2: Making broadband affordable. By 2015, entry-level 
>>> broadband services should be made affordable in developing countries 
>>> through adequate regulation and market forces (amounting to less 
>>> than 5% of average monthly income).
>>>
>>> •   Target 3: Connecting homes to broadband. By 2015, 40% of 
>>> households in developing countries should have Internet access.
>>>
>>> •   Target 4: Getting people online. By 2015, Internet user 
>>> penetration should reach 60% worldwide, 50% in developing countries 
>>> and 15% in LDCs.
>>
>> Are these the right goals?  If not, why not, and what should the 
>> goals be instead?  Has
>> CS indicated otherwise the ITU Broadband Commission, and if so, what 
>> happened?
>>
>> They have a "Sharehouse" open to any and all for submission of 
>> materials to be considered
>> including "case studies, best practice, analytical reports and policy 
>> recommendations." - 
>> (<http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Sharehouse/Search.aspx>).  They 
>> also have working
>> groups which appear to include additional participants from outside 
>> the Commission and
>> from academia, industry and public institutions.  The IT Broadband 
>> Commission web site
>> provides most of this information in an very straightfoward manner, 
>> with outcomes and major
>> reports available in six major languages.
>>
>> Having participating in several more 'classic' ITU initiatives, I 
>> will say that I find this relatively
>> straightforward in comparison and while perhaps imperfect in some 
>> aspects, it is much closer
>> to what many folks have been asking for in multi-stakeholder policy 
>> development than past
>> practices by these organizations.
>>
>> I have no involvement in the ITU Broadband Commission (and am the 
>> probably one of the last
>> folks on the planet expected to speak in defense of the ITU's 
>> attempts at multi-stakeholder
>> engagement), but is there an actual issue here to respond to?   
>> Has IGC or other CS
>> organizations attempted to engage with the ITU Broadband Commission 
>> and been told that
>> they are not welcome?  Has input been provided for consideration or 
>> to the working groups
>> been set aside in the preparation of the major reports and outcomes? 
>>  If so, then this matter
>> should indeed be a major concern and should be raised loudly at WSIS 
>> and elsewhere.
>> However, if the issue is the Broadband Commission failing to listen 
>> due to lack of actual
>> participation and input, then expressing concern over its structure 
>> is not only specious, but
>> it dilutes the voice of civil society when addressing matters of 
>> actual substance elsewhere.
>>
>> /John
>>
>> Disclaimers:  My views alone. Concepts in the email may appear larger 
>> in real life. Your results
>> may vary. No user-serviceable parts inside.  Do not use this email as 
>> an exit in case of fire.
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120407/5e5a3edf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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