[governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland"

[Riaz K Tayob]

Thanks Parminder

As I said, as one idiot savant, it is good to have the cat amongst the 
pigeons. On this list it seems if one is less than robust in 
articulation, one can get papered over. That we see the same themes 
played over and over again is remarkable for its consistency.

The IGF is a non-binding forum and the treatment CIR has received is 
unacceptable. ANY political process that seeks to address the legitimacy 
issue must face this squarely, and if it cannot, well then it is merely 
tendentious.

Being guided by incrementalist approaches that seek to entertain ideas 
and/or understand that is perfectly rational, rationality being my 
ticket for entry into civil society. And there is space for all estates. 
But I refuse to start off from, or be required to, the presumption that 
markets are best (or if it ain't broke don't fix it, or other single 
rooter fantasms, take your pick). It depends and I start off from the 
scepticism of a priori assumptions. Has IETF delivered a remarkable 
technical machinery for the world, you betcha. That has merit, and I 
would be loathed to have interference in it by way of higher level 
governance changes that affect its efficacy. However, it is not a 
blanket position. If the technical and regulatory share a set in the 
venn, then it simply depends again. Or if a firm makes a good policy 
intervention, that is fine, one can entertain it. But I will not start 
from the presumption that it accords with public interest, without 
excluding the possibility that it might well (but that raises other 
issues, like dependency of alliances etc). Nick's computer industry 
group is a good case in point around TRIPs and LDCs. There are shared 
values, but I am not going to give them a veto over it nor would they 
want that, for other reasons. One can even disagree with MSM and 
challenge Gurstein but still go along with him tactically as a fellow 
traveller. Values convergence allows for far more flexibility. I 
certainly do not want to be a Luddite on governance innovations. But 
that cuts both ways too irt DOC/ICANN.

But we have a semblance of dialogue on this list, whose contours you 
have highlighted. And civil society is messy, but I do draw the line 
where rationality fails, as if even legal systems did not have  bill of 
rights that acts as a countermajoritarian device in a majoritarian 
democracy. My trouble, and see by the responses you get, is that there 
is a status quoist /cabal/ that operates in various guises that seeks 
domination through, in Malcolm X's words, any means necessary. I would 
not mind it if were not so disingenuous, and simultaneously transparent. 
This does not go to motive necessarily, people can be 
sincere/naive/innocent. That does not factor, simply because legitimacy 
operates at a higher level of abstraction. And specific differences are 
merely symptomatic of this higher level difference.

Or to talk to you as a neocolonised subject, it is just like the wild 
west, with cowboys vs indians, slaves etc. And the wild west was opened 
up because of colonist pressures on New England who were becoming 
upstarts. The characterisation of the colonial power then was, the 
British were liberal, philanthropic and monopolists. We see market 
orientation, GAC, training courses, and DOC contractual control 
respectively. It did not matter how many American British monarchists 
there were, nor the number of house slaves who sang their masters' 
praises. Legitimacy issues like freedom were not discounted by 
collaboration as ideas. So they through a tea party in Boston.

One can waste ones candour in such crass discussions of course, I find 
these tedious as certainly others do too. I would be happy to admit the 
very real possibility that a slave makes a bad master. What I have 
difficulty in countenancing is a modern dialogue on these values/issues. 
We can even forgive the earlier colonists for the genocidal Great 
Exploration/Expansion/Discovery ages, as that was the tribal morality at 
the time in much of the world and there were few articulate natives to 
make a case. The modern set however has no such excuse. The dialogue on 
this list is pretty much was Hoffman called it, and that is just normal. 
Perhaps more can be learned from N S engagements in other UN fora, as it 
is oft much better - despite as stark differences on policies.

And more personally, don't feel dejected about the responses you get. 
Its up to you and yours to keep Swartz's and Elsberg's memory alive, 
even if it means you have to deprive some in the North of their monopoly 
of definition /of the terms/ of the terms of the engagement.  It you who 
is hunting, so even if you can just yelp, keep the quarry running, 
working for its power. Things change, endogenously and exogenously, and 
exercised power fragments...

On 2013/03/22 09:09 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> Beware Riaz, you are stepping into another prohibited space of "do not 
> discuss"
>
> Do not discuss "US gov role in ICANN"
>
> Do not discuss "google, facebook etc"
>
> Do not discuss "technical community"
>
> Do not discuss "issues of accountability and transparency of MS 
> processes"
>
> Do not discuss. "ICANN's processes"
>
> Do not discuss "OECD's global Internet policy making activities"
>
> Dont you have something to say about a developing country government, 
> UN or ITU....
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Friday 22 March 2013 12:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> What jurisdictional issues?  In practice - where do you see USG actively interfering in ICANN affairs, except in broad concerns over governance where DOC / NTIA do set direction at times?
>>
>> And do you see civil society and industry barred from an ICANN meet, ever?
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 22-Mar-2013, at 3:34, Riaz K Tayob<riaz.tayob at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Intergovernmental hegemony. Not quite for me.
>>>
>>> Formal equality is one thing, but too equalising given the current jurisdiction issues with ICANN etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013/03/21 10:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Seems like until it happens we really do't know what it will be.
>>>>
>>>> It could turn out to be a island of multistakeholder cooperation in a sea of inter-governmental hegemony.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130322/8ebd2f06/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