[governance] Industrial Progress, revisited…

[McTim]

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:36 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 18 May 2013 09:10 PM, McTim wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 9:22 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A very good warning against giving big business a veto over public policy
>>> decisions, which is what multistakeholderism  essentially is, in the
>>> manner
>>> it is propagated in global IG today.
>>
>> This is not the case in any of the fora I have ever been to (remotely
>> or in person)  Would you care to back up your assertion with an
>> example?
>
>
> Yes, I have an example. You spoke on this elist about Google having a vote
> at WCIT

We don't vote in MS processes, so I'm sure I said it wasn't MSism
because only governments and no other SHs (like Google) had =
standing.



.... By that logic of course the many other big businesses present
> there would also have a vote


no one should have a vote actually.

, along with a plenty of google funded NGOs...
> At WCIT things get decided by consensus


ummm they actually *voted* for some value of the word *vote*.

.... And this scenario has so many
> votes for big business...

but no business had a vote at the end of the day!



> That of course constitutes a veto.

of course, you are mistaken.  how can someone have a veto if they are
disenfranchised?

>
> An issue cannot pass the IGF MAG if big business doesnt agree to it - so it
> cant even make the agenda without big business's consent.....

Is there this kind of representation on the MAG, I had thought people
participate in it in their individual capacities.


>
> (IT for Change had proposed a workshop on "Regulating global Internet
> businesses - Role for global frameworks'. MAG did not find it an appropriate
> topic for discussion at the IGF.

probably becasue it is not.

Funny, because, almost everyone I meet
> outside the charmed IG circle thinks that this is 'the' thing that needs to
> be done something about, at a global level.)


in other words, effectively killing the thing we are trying to protect
from governmental oversight.

>
> You can see how multistakeholderism is emerging as a safety value against
> public policy controls over the free reign that Internet businesses will
> like to have, and largely has today.
>
> All this is very problematic for the future of democracy... And we are
> becoming either co- conspirators to this or silent spectators


hopefully co-conspirators in disintermediating democracy from
"representatives" who don't necessarily always "represent" their
constituents.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

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