[governance] U.S. - Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the Internet Economy

Fri Oct 26 12:43:53 EDT 2012

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Paul****
>
> “popular support” does not mean one person, or even two people. ****
>
> I mean a widespread mobilization among either civil society or business or
> both, demanding greater UN involvement.
>

Omigods. I can't believe that you would count a "widespread
mobilization" *among
business alone* (or business and "civil society") as meeting the definition
of "popular support."  From the perspective of democracy (which counts only
human beings as having a vote, not businesses) your honesty here is almost
mind-blowing.

Widespread business support could easily mean a couple people at most plus
a few hundred or thousand simply paid to support the profitability of the
company but who don't really believe in the proposal in question or don't
consider their personal belief relevant to doing their job and simply set
aside their own views.

But I see that you have already eaten ONE of your words, the word "no" --
since you are now putting "popular support" as the phrase in question
rather than your original words, which were "no popular support."

Under your "widespread mobilization" test, only the very, very rich can
mobilize public opinion, either those rich in money or very, very rich in
volunteers.

Milton, I think you and I, as residents of the United States, know precious
little about the particulars of what the people of the global south show
popular support for, or would show popular support for.  No matter how many
MS meetings one attends, civil society groups from this general area
legitimately speak on behalf only of their group members, and to the extent
they purport to speak for anyone else besides however many members they
have it is just as much of a usurpation of authority as if you purported to
speak for me, or if I purported to speak for you.  I trust we can both
agree that it would be wrongful for either of us to purport to characterize
the position of the other without authority to do so.

One might reach out through polling and such to get a better feel for
popular opinion in a given area.  This would make for a more informed
process, but unless and until those who purport to speak for the global
south or anywhere else including North America speak for others
specifically after having been authorized to represent them via elections
somehow, there is no legitimacy to the representation of any but the group
members who perhaps have had a vote and a voice in what the delegate to the
MS meeting might say or support.

In polling and communication generally, how the question is asked is
critical:

If one asks "should the UN control the Internet" the vast majority would
say no.

But if one asks a more specific question, (others could surely phrase a
better example here) like "Do you support a free, open internet with
*consistent
worldwide laws* and rules instead of a patchwork, fragmented internet?" the
vast majority would say Yes.

Now, if the only way to have consistent worldwide laws and rules is through
some form of actual or defacto world government, then I think people will
change or have changed their minds on the world government issue and if the
UN is the only entity set up that might handle such a task, then I think
there arguably is widespread popular support for UN involvement, but NOBODY
WILL THINK OF IT IN THOSE "UN" TERMS at least initially.  AT least it is
strongly arguable that some form of limited world government is clearly in
the public interest, though perhaps widespread "popular support" is
something that is only achieved after folks who are very, very rich in
either money or time choose to do the necessary public education and
mobilization.

Note that the cost to mobilize "business" in favor of a proposal that
affects their bottom line is truly tiny compared to the cost to mobilize
the public, but either one of them is something Milton will consider to
meet the definition of "popular support." And I find that revealing of
political attitude.  One can always choose to consider business opinion
Important, but to equate and conflate it with the democratic idea of
popular support and thereby give business opinion the patina of widespread
popular support is quite wrong.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

****
>
> You show me such a mobilization and I will eat those words. ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:45 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] U.S. - Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on
> the Internet Economy****
>
>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> ****
>
> [snip] There just is no popular support for greater UN involvement in
> Internet governance. ****
>
>
> With the caveat that it be appropriately drafted and designed, I would
> support greater UN involvement in Internet governance. In any case, at
> minimum, it would appear that greater involvement by this listserv in
> Internet governance might be fairly said to be greater UN involvement.  Is
> this problematic -- is there "no popular support" for anything greater when
> it comes to the UN?
>
> "NO popular support" is a very strong statement, and as applied to
> "greater UN involvement" it is not true since at least one person
> expressing support would be more than "no" support, and I have done so
> above.  It would be easy to expand the number of counterexamples.
>
> This statement of "no popular support" appears to be a specific example of
> at least exaggeration if not false claim regarding what amounts to the
> mantle of democracy, since democracy is supposed to be responsive to
> popular support and is somewhat interchangeable in this context.
>
> I would be happy to allow Mr. Mueller the latitude to make what amount in
> part to political arguments, but it seems that in the course of this email
> I refer to below, a stricter policy in terms of how one characterizes
> support or the lack thereof is being urged by Mr. Mueller, so I think it's
> only fair to hold him to about the same standard he urges for others.
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.****
>
> Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> Internet Governance Project
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org****
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:12 PM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
> > Subject: Re: [governance] U.S. - Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the
> > Internet Economy
> >****
>
> > Parminder,
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:44 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Does anyone here have answers why they remain silent with regard to the
> > > active work of rich countries to develop 'global' Internet policy
> > > principles, and react so rabidly to any effort at democratising global
> > > Internet policy making.
> >
> > My reaction is that CIRP was NOT an effort to make policy principles,
> > rather an effort
> > to make IG LESS democratic (in a top-down gov only style).
> >
> > It's clear we see the world differently.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > McTim
> > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
> ****
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4965 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121026/e417a444/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