[governance] Is this the same in Internet Governance?

Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Fri Mar 9 05:53:03 EST 2012 

You are right that there are more important things to be politically
correct about.

I see vested interests moving forward in the form of business cartels
that influence regulatory and policy spaces by lobbying governments
and this article link I shared specifically points to such a power
struggle.

Some countries are seen fighting these forces in one or the other and
I've seen between the lines like this article was an interesting read
last year that pointed to China actually making it clear to such
cartels that last year's Internet white paper: "stressed the need for
entities that did business in China to respect its rules, its laws,
its filtering requirements."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monroe-price/xinhua-chinas-soft-power-_b_872578.html

Despite China's soft sided media statements, we significant chaos and
discussions around the IBSA proposals where again nations decided to
step up their defense against cartels influence in other Internet
related foras of global interest. ACTA is also a good measurement tool
to see who and where are entities interested in opposing ACTA so that
the cartels can evangelize more supporters and strengthen a certain
single sided philosophy.

Even within the IGF discussions and where negotiations happen very
fluidly, we see sidings and cartel building and pushing the paper
activities. Within the context of EU, one would sometime see
government led cartels that try to put up a proper fight before
actually giving into larger economic and social interest pressures.

Its not an easy road for people that engage with civic interests and
are driven by both social interest and their soul material! For
cartels, there is no spirit but for civic movements there is both a
soul or spirit that drives their understanding of common,
collaborative, public good.

I would like to understand from your experience standpoint that how
can the correct framing of issues and solutions be done against two
growing information, communication, media and Internet cartels whether
commercial interest led or govt interest led?

The natural exercise of disproportionate power as you mention is very
problematic but how can it be managed when financial forces determine
the very foundation of access and infrastructure evolution and
whenever these issues are touched, they fall under govt policy and
regulation that is once again already being influenced by these
commercial cartels?

-- Best

Fouad

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> As Alfonso says, it is nice to have a landing point, that Gurstein has
> provided - I did interject at the time suggesting that the WIPO Trust Fund
> for ensuring the participation of indigenous people could be a model that
> could be used as it is tried and tested by a UN Body (so they have worked
> out some of the institutional issues which could be emulated.
>
> More generally, I have some thoughts on process etc.
>
> What I read from Parminder's input is
>
> a) the need for a healthy scepticism and prioritisation of "reason" (i.e.
> win arguments because of persuasiveness and public interest - if that is the
> priority for civic engagement. And that more credence needs to be given to
> the views that have been hitherto marginalised, especially in a space that
> is non-binding.
>
> b) NOT that there is an unbridgeable divide between vested interests and the
> public interest... a sound operating environment can benefit all, but the
> public interests/developing countries should not bear the disproportionate
> burden of adjustments etc. Therefore it is neither ironic about Veni (of
> course it also depends on context at the time the comments were made), nor
> that those affiliated with groups/IGF should not make input. On the
> contrary, it is more vital that they state their piece and be subject to the
> same rigour that for instance Parminder's views are subject to. There are
> more important things to be politically correct about. Trouble is that from
> an "objective" pov, some the arguments made often either not stand up to
> scrutiny or are based on different world views that are irreconcilable. But
> these are necessary contradictions in social change. What we do have is a
> safe space that can be used by all to maximise engagements on these issues
> so that the evolution of the ICT paradigm can be not just left to the
> vagaries of the market, but also serve higher ends that can/may be socially
> constructed.
>
> This is not intended as a side swipe, but there is a tendency nowadays to
> believe in the rule of technocrats and experts. Just cos someone can read a
> programme or circuit design does not mean that their knowledge is better
> because of that expertise... social sciences are different from the natural
> sciences, within limits of the technology of course. And here the issue is
> not to resolve matters but to have the correct framing. Initiatives that
> promote Multistakeholderism without recognising that those with money would
> naturally exercise disproportionate power are problematic- but it is capable
> of management. But my personal experience is that even basic process issues
> are not taken seriously enough and abuses are just brushed aside as if the
> norms of realpolitick should apply uniformly to norms informing public
> interest. This will not do.
>
> Riaz
>
>
>
> On 2012/03/08 11:14 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>> Kind of ironic as this issue was pretty much what Veni was commenting
>> on, and making accusations about, when he left the list a few years
>> ago.
>>
>> FWIW: I am a part-time consultant for the IGF secretariat, means I
>> might be working for them in Baku.  I won't know for sure until a
>> month or so before (this is the same each year), but as a result I
>> tend not to comment on substance of the IGF.  Though couldn't resist
>> during the last open consultation :-)
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:35 PM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Fouad,
>>>
>>> Thanks for raising this very important issue. From the quoted article
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists
>>>
>>> "This is plutocracy, pure and simple. The battle for democracy is now a
>>> straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping
>>> politics
>>> to suit their interests. The first task of all democrats must be to
>>> demand
>>> that any group, of any complexion, seeking to effect political change
>>> should reveal its funders."
>>>
>>> It is our view, among civil society groups that I work with, that no one
>>> should be considered civil society who doesnt reveal all funding sources,
>>> in
>>> a completely transparent (preferably pro-active) manner, and is not ready
>>> to
>>> answer all questions in this regard.
>>>
>>> What has been obvious to most for decades and centuries of devleopment of
>>> democratic thinking, seems to be completely lost on a lot of the so
>>> called
>>> IG civil society. There is this very dangerous talk of 'multi stakeholder
>>> funding' against 'public funding' for policy bodies (what to speak of
>>> just
>>> public interest civil society bodies). Since the civil society obviously
>>> has
>>> no funds to spare, this is just a poorly-disguised call for corporate
>>> funding for policy bodies. And this talk has flowered on this very list,
>>> and
>>> we have kept quite, nay mostly been supportive.
>>>
>>> This is nothing other than the most powerful - plutocrats, referred in
>>> the
>>> above quote - seeking to control the reins of policy -making and -shaping
>>> bodies through control over their finances. And I have seen with horror
>>> how
>>> easily civil society have fallen prey to this game, and openly supported
>>> such moves.
>>>
>>> Even in the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF (WGIIGF) this game
>>> played out, as one of the biggest contestations. Whether there should be
>>> any
>>> global public funding at all for the IGF become a big sticking point. And
>>> the final resolution was; no, IGF should entirely be supported by private
>>> funds, whether of corporates, or by voluntary donations by countries who
>>> have obvious partisan interests vis a vis global policy regimes. And what
>>> a
>>> victory for civil society - that evil UN was able to be kept at bay. We
>>> can
>>> celebrate!
>>>
>>> So, who are we, of the IG world, to be surprised or feel wounded to read
>>> such news items like this one - that special interests have been bank
>>> rolling the so called civil society bodies. We have gone much further; we
>>> have advocated and ensured that even policy bodies are exclusively
>>> financed
>>> by private funds, so that what you cant do by your legitimate
>>> representation
>>> in a policy developing system, you can do through control over its funds.
>>> A
>>> brave new post-democratic world indeed. And we have been less than silent
>>> accomplices in building it.
>>>
>>> One should have heard the long and strident arguments of our much valued
>>> partners of the mustistakeholder brigade - you know who - against greater
>>> transparency in IGF funding. However, these things look to IG civil
>>> society
>>> as minor issues relative to that big demon - UN taking over the Internet.
>>> (In the end though, and I give the credit largely to two government
>>> participants - one from the North and another from the South - one of the
>>> very very few real accomplishments of the report of the WG on IGF
>>> Improvements is that it calls for full disclosure - on both sides,
>>> incomes
>>> and expenditure - regarding IGF finances. )
>>>
>>> Significantly, since an opposition to any UN funds for the IGF was
>>> sweet-coated by the 'UN taking over the Internet' bogey, an alternative
>>> innovative way of direct public funding of the IGF through routing of the
>>> fees or taxes collected by the ICANN + system from the users was
>>> proposed,
>>> but it was equally cynically shot down. So you see, the problem is not
>>> only
>>> with UN's 'tainted' public funds - as some want to see it - it is against
>>> any funding which is automatic and which doesnt give the rich and the
>>> powerful discretionary levers of control over the global IG policy
>>> system.
>>>
>>> Quite unhappily, there wasnt even any civil society support for this
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> In the circumstances, going back to the original article about corporate
>>> money and politics, I think IG civil society has a lot to think about its
>>> own conduct and outlook in this matter.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> On Thursday 08 March 2012 06:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to know who funds these thinktank lobbyists.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad

-------------- 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

More information about the Governance mailing list