[governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest

[Mawaki Chango]

At the very least, it has become abundantly clear that when it comes
to the internet, there is private/corporate interest-grown CS and
there is public interest-grown CS. Public interest-grown CS has
something in common with the *notion* of state or (public) government
even though they often have to fight against established governments;
on the other hand the private/corporate interest-grown CS is never
more so apparent and so vocal as when the corporations with interests
at stake cannot influence the policy agenda upfront (which they are
probably used to doing in big corporation-friendly governments) or
stop policymakers both at home and overseas from considering decisions
that they think are detrimental to their business.

Now, I am not implying that one can say this entity is a
private/corporate interest-grown CSO and that entity is a public
interest-grown CSO. Neither am I a Manichean rejecting the notion that
those two sets of interests might overlap or align sometimes. I know
corporations have a beneficial impact in the public arena and some go
out of their way to do social good. There are many variables that
might lead an entity to behave like one or the other kind of CS,
starting with the issue area which will have to be one that involves
those two sets of interests and funding structures, etc. I am just
saying even though they might not always have clear cut material
boundaries, those logics or dynamics exist in the public sphere or in
our public discourse and sometimes profoundly define the terms of the
debate. If that is the case then when taking positions on issues of
interest for the two kinds of CS, public interest-grown CS should
spell things out (e.g., its fundamental premises and values as well as
its ultimate goals, and possibly what distinguishes them from other
CS-like discourses) in a manner that enables its actors and
representatives to interact constructively and evolve toward possible
points of agreement with all participants/sides, with the constant
conscience and within the boundaries of those premises, values and
goals. It is either that or the wholesale and buying of pre-fabricated
slogans and supposedly irreconcilable or non-amendable antagonisms.

Best,

Mawaki
P.S. If I sounded above like addressing the question more from the
standpoint of what I call public interest-grown CS, it's because my
understanding is that this Caucus was formed in that vein and, at the
very least, that's where I'm coming from.


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:47 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> McTim, my point was and remains that there are a range of issues involved in
> these matters and that the polarization generated at the WCIT may serve the
> interests of some but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality nor the
> interests/values of CS.
>
> CS should be looking for higher ground (to my mind support for the Internet
> as a global public good) and finding allies in support of this wherever they
> can found.  The focusing in the WCIT (and dare I say before that at the IGF)
> on the Internet Freedom issue by certain elements within CS and others
> ignored the very large range of issues on which agreement could and should
> be found and overall as I said CS should be "non-aligned" in the emerging
> "Internet Cold War" and developing it's own position(s) which include among
> others free expression, human rights, and digital inclusion.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:29 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
> Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the
>> issue, but at least from my reading there was considerable support for
>> the below among the "sovereigntist" camp
>
> "The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"
>
> I don't see your point.  Everyone supported this resolution according to the
> BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the very heart of
> the ICT sector" for example.
>
>
> --
> 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
>

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