[governance] ITU Broadband Commission

Mon Apr 9 00:39:21 EDT 2012

Hi Lee

On Monday 09 April 2012 08:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> You're pushing on levels-of-analysis and levels of governance issues, 
> that I agree are important to keep clear but are only tangentially 
> tied to an ITU Broadband Commission's efforts.

Cant agree to this. I will again take the example of Mubarak's 
authoritarian regime and the fundamentalists in Egypt. Basic principles 
remain important, whether or not a governance/ policy system is 
democratic, multistakeholder etc, independent of the efforts and 
outcomes of such a system. I am surprised to hear you say that such 
issues of principles are 'only tangentially tied' to any particular 
governance/ policy system being spoken of.

> So now you've pushed me to defend the ITU Broadband Commission : (

And you remind me of the promise I made to John Curran that I will later 
come to the issue of actual outcomes of the Broadband Commission. :)

During WSIS, civil society from the Sought fought, with help from 
developing countries, for getting enough references in the outcome 
documents about public investments apart from promoting market friendly 
policies in the telecom sector.  The years since the WSIS have proved 
that this was a right thing to do; public investment is much needed to 
ensure full inclusion. It has been realised that it is even more 
important in the fixed line, broadband sector. In the last few years 
countries ranging from Australia, Sweden (Stockholm) and the US (almost) 
to South Africa, Brazil and India have set up public sector led 
broadband initiatives.

In the circumstances, one would expect that a commission on broadband 
giving its report in 2010-11 would provide good prominence to the need 
for public sector funds and initiatives for an inclusive broadband 
infrastructure. Now, pl pick up the Broadband Commission report and read 
it. It is a rather one sided celebration of market friendly policies 
with no significant mention of public funds and public sector 
initiatives. Is this not misleading? Would one not suspect that the 
chairmanship and other membership of the Commission (with strong 
conflict of interest) had something to do with this...

As I read the report I see many parts that, I remember from the WSIS 
rounds of negotiations, would not have passed muster of the assembled 
group at the WSIS. So, do you see a problem here, with the BB Commission 
kind of MSism.... And as I said, experience since the WSIS has further 
proved the need of the public sector playing an important role in 
setting up broadband infrastructure.

You say, wont it be useful if 10 countries picked up the Report and 
developed their national broadband plans, 'because of it'. I am not sure 
that today it needs a commission to tell any country about the need for 
a broadband plan. It may be more relevant to think about the danger that 
because of this Report 10 or more countries take it that it is the 
received wisdom today that the public sector should keep away from any 
active role in developing national broadband infrastructure, when 
precisely  the opposite is a common policy perspective and trend today.

>
> SNIP
>
> Or Parminder, do we need to solve the problem of the deficit of 
> democracy for global/multinational processes first? Since I fear that 
> could be a very long wait.

And with that expedient wipe under the carpet the problem of a severe 
global democratic deficit. No, I cant agree. We need to pursue pragmatic 
and principled approaches in tandem, not one at the expense of the other.

There is a saying in Hindi; if you plant the seeds of /Kikar/ (a thorny 
worthless tree) you wont get a /neem/ tree (one with legendary medicinal 
value). It kind of nicely sums it up.

Parminder
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder 
> [parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 08, 2012 10:18 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] ITU Broadband Commission
>
>
> 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/de839e44/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