[governance] ITU Broadband Commission

[parminder]

The original issue in this discussion was whether conflict of interest 
is an important principle to ensure and fight for with regard to public 
policy and governance systems. MS-ism (multistakeholderism)  seeks to 
avoid this question - and that is what I see in John Curran's response, 
diverting the issue towards a 'we should participate in any case' 
discussion. This avoidance is because MS-ism at its heart is based on an 
inversion of the long held sacrosanct democratic principle that if one 
has a clear private interest in an outcome of a policy/ governance 
system, he/she should not be a part of the 'high echelons' of the 
system.  A stakeholder after all is basically one with direct 'narrow' 
private interest or stake in a policy outcome. There is no attempt at 
achieving of a higher, no doubt politically constructed, public 
interest. MSism seeks a patch work of accommodating private interests, 
with the involved actors at the policy table legitimately pursuing their 
narrow private interests. Obviously, the most powerful are most able to 
be present and drive their agenda (there being no 'conflict of interest' 
related norm) ...... Additionally, MSism, by its convenient ploy of the 
'need for consensus', also by its very nature lead to status quoist, 
conservative politics.

Traditional democratic norms and systems were built, for instance,  to 
keep powerful businesses from directly shaping political decisions. That 
of course is seen as 'the' problem by neolibs. MS-ism as a political 
system is their clever answer to the problem. In order to co-opt civil 
society, and overall present a more acceptable image, MSism seeks to 
take up the vocabulary, and outwardly the concerns, of the long standing 
demand and struggles for participatory democracy, deepening democracy 
etc.... Some civil society people have considered it a useful tactical 
move to go along with this much more powerful global move towards MS-ism 
(especially when participatory/ deepening democracy etc have not had 
that much success).

My view is that at this junction we need to review - is it that we were 
able to co-opt the power of the global capital to open up more 
participatory space, or, whether, we have got co-opted in the big 
business and neolib plan to supplant democracy.

parminder

On Sunday 08 April 2012 09:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2012, at 16:22, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
>    
>> My 2 cents is the general principles/objectives being pushed by the ITU's Broadband Commission are not bad, but the fact of the matter is it more a classic high-level talkathon opportunity than anything else. Submitting docs to them is likely not worth the time it would  as Michael suggests. And for CS, certainly not worth the bother of trying to shape/steer at this late date when the dye is cast.
>>
>>
>>      
> I am not sure I understand why submitting existing docs, by someone who knew what to submit, was not worth the bother.
>
> On the topic of participating or not.  I think that is the wrong question.
>
> If the topic is important and the venue relevant, CS should participate.
>
> The fact of whether we are included at the table or not, would seem to dictate tactics as opposed to participation.  There are different ways by which CS makes it views heard, when it has a seat at the table or  when it is forced to stand outside the door making itself heard.  And if CS is being excluded from this table, and we thinking there is any chance they are going to do something harmful to the public good, then we should be screaming our heads off outside the door and should gear up a campaign to do so.
>
> One of the disadvantages of the multistakeholder model (i bet some of you thought i never saw a disadvantage to the model) is that when we are not included we just sort of whinge and sputter.  We have lost some of the anger that made CS a force at WSIS and this is partly because we have changed over all of our methods to Multistakeholder reasonableness.  And personally I think one of the reasons we see a pull back in the support of the multistakeholder model by the other stakeholders is that we have become docile, or even invisible, when excluded.
>
> The only time many of the others will allow CS at the table is when they think that excluding CS will be more annoying than having us at the table is.  To expect governments or business to it because it is the right thing, is sort of wishful thinking.  governments do what make retention of power easiest and business do what maximizes profit.  So CS has to be prepared to be  disruptive of easy power and profits if it wants to be included in the discussions.  And sometimes it just has to flex its disruptive muscles just to remind the powers that be that it is ready to do so.
>
> my thoughts for an easter morning.
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120409/de083e58/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