[governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other enabled tax dodging

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

That makes several assumptions, broad, sweeping ones, that I absolutely refuse to share.

They are assumptions that, when held and expressed, only serve to drive a wedge between industry and civil society, and poison any attempts at discourse or engagement between these stakeholder groups.

The constantly vituperative language and lack of trust used to describe any action at all by a corporation in this space are symptoms of an uncivil society, thankfully shared by what appears to be, at the most, a vocal splinter group among civil society.

--srs (iPad)

On 23-May-2013, at 14:10, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> MSism is a method to ensure that all those with a "stake" (interest) in a
> decision have an opportunity to participate in those decisions.
> 
> Good faith participation in these "deliberations" (quoting Riaz's excellent
> discussion) requires that those involved be clear and open as to what their
> stake/interest is in a particular deliberation. 
> 
> If a participant attempts to mask their interests (or the pursuit of its
> interests) by, for example, developing mechanisms to have other of the
> stakeholders surreptitiously articulate or promote these interests while
> hiding that fact, that is what is normally understood as "astro-turfing"...
> (as for example having supposedly CS participants/stakeholders pursuing
> corporate interests rather than the public interest which is what one
> assumes is their rationale for participation...
> 
> In an interest based deliberation there will necessarily and of course, be
> shifting sets of alliances as some interests among some stakeholder groups
> temporarily align/coincide for some purposes and in some contexts.  This is
> different from the deliberate process of not being open about the interests
> that one is pursuing or whose interests one is representing. 
> 
> If the shoe fits, wear it...
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh
> Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:57 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] The noose is closing on global Internet and other
> enabled tax dodging
> 
> I am sorry, please correct me if I am wrong, but there was some talk of
> multistakeholderism.
> 
> If any action at all by a stakeholder group is continuously disparaged in
> one term or the other, generally suggesting mens rea  - "astroturfing", say
> - this argues that, while you accept that corporations are actors in the IG
> field, you view their every action as negative and to be opposed.  Funnily
> enough, that apparently extends even to actions where they might make common
> cause with civil society.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 23-May-2013, at 13:20, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 2013/05/22 03:23 PM, McTim wrote:
>>> Indeed, there are some folk who think they can be the arbiter of who 
>>> is in which SH group.
>> 
>> It is not a matter of who is an arbiter or not, imho.
>> 
>> It is about the practice of astro-turfing... wrapping up corporate
> interest as public interest. In a representative system, this is not a
> problem. In a deliberative system, it can be. A contest of interest may be a
> means of social organisation, but that does not necessary imply it is
> reasonable. A rational method does not guarantee a reasoned outcome. If
> reason fails in the articulalation of a position or policy, then the
> interest may be valid, but its ability to garner consensus is difficult if
> deliberative, and depending on numbers easy if representative. Hence
> compositional issues are important, if we are to avoid fallacy of
> composition. Which is why some USers on this list may yawn when it comes to
> the regulatory revolving door in the US and other places because the state
> as a site for deliberative politics is in my view not fully understood.
>> 
>>> correct.  if we want to blame someone, let's blame the folk who wrote 
>>> the current rules!
>> As argued previously, yes the problem can be what is legal. Like ICANN/DOC
> arrangments....
>> 
>> While general population gets the Sequester in the US (cutting even air
> traffic controllers) big corporates get tax loopholes to fly through...
> meanwhile the Banks get 'cash for trash'.
>> 
>> How does this relate to Internet Governance. Corporates are actors in the
> IG field, thus understanding their role, and consequently seat at the MS
> table is important. It may not meet some precision standards, but it is
> hardly a matter that is irrelevant...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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