[bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Sat Apr 19 21:06:22 EDT 2014
You have had your say.
I would prefer that the other signatories to that letter respond, either privately to the co cos or in public but after netmundial.
Her appointment is done and this petty controversy amd politicking is distracting from much larger policy goals.
--srs (iPad)
> On 20-Apr-2014, at 6:24, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Ian and Carlos,
>
> Perhaps it does not behove me to say this since I am quite junior to both of you in the global IG civil society space - but then I feel that it is my unhappy duty to say it: I am pained that you have put your considerable reputation and goodwill in this space in service of defending what patently is political corruption of the highest order, that too with regard to a model of MSism which you both so vigorously promote.
>
> Yes, this particular instance is one of pure and simple political corruption of the highest order, the kind which normally immediately produces reactions of revulsion and outrage in civil society groups...It is not personal. Thousands teach in colleges and have political and social ambitions, and take various kinds of routes to pursue them; similarly thousands work in NGOs like I do. I dont think any of the signatories of the letter from Indian CS groups was in any kind of keen competition to be in NetMundial organisational positions. So, it should not matter to us that much who becomes the top CS reps to the MetMundial... In any case, such is the diversity and structural dis-organisation of civil society that different, often very unexpected, kinds of appointments from civil society regularly takes place, and we may whisper and complain among ourselves but always let it be... It is kind of part of being civil society.
>
> This present one is not such a case. And in my view, for anyone willing to be on guard against such subversions, it is not difficult to see the nature of the issue here. As said, it is a case of highest political corruption.. Big business from the US, backed by some strong political interests in that country, have been working in India for 2-3 years now to subvert India's political processes around IG basically with the objective to keep its voice silent on the global level... There have been much discussion inside India lately on this phenomenon including some news reports. Will cut this story short.... What I am coming to is, it is as a part of this political strategy that Sub was picked up and promoted as a 'civil society voice' in India. India has a proud culture of vibrant democracy and a rather mature civil society, whereby it is of course absolutely unacceptable for us, Indian civil society groups, that such a political subversion and corruption takes place. This was and remains the cause of our strong reaction.
>
> When, as they say in India, we saw the water go over the head, with Subi's appointment as civil society co-chair of NetMundial, Indian civil society groups took it as their responsibility to bring the facts to the table, and make global actors cognizant about them. It is not an easy decision to take - we all know that while one has to work hard and devote much time to such kind of a thing, there will also always be considerable comebacks, because we are dealing with actors who are extremely resourcefully (obvious, when a completely unknown person can suddenly be placed at the CS head position of a major global meeting), and therefore expectation of counter personal attacks, as indeed have been happening. It perhaps is this reason that most of the other signatories of the letter have not come out publicly on this list to present and push the case. (BTW, I may disclose that I was neither the party to initiate the collective letter nor the news item in Hindustan Times; just so that you all know.)
>
> What was surprising is that, when practically all civil society groups in India, who are engaged with IG work - and have extensive work relationships with all other global actors, often stronger than they have among themselves - came out to present the facts on the ground about the inappropriateness of Subi's selections, practically no one from the global civil society expressed real support. (Yes, a good quote from my email to be used by Subi.) I see this as primarily the fault of the civil society leadership. They cannot be doing this with their national CS partners, especially of a country with one seventh of world's population and whose general maturity of civil society processes cannot easily be questioned . But the fact that this did happen points to serious structural flaws in the form and role of civil society, especially its leadership, in MSist spaces. No, it is not the civil society groups from India who lost here - it is the global MSist civil society that has lost, and it may need to introspect deeply about it, if it ever will...
>
> Apparently, the testimony of practically all the civil society groups engaged with IG in India was not enough... Then came this investigative report from one of the largest and most-respected dailies of India. A report which I know was being worked for more than 2 months. With extensive interactions inter alia with all people who have been named adversely in the report... I also happen to know that the involved people personally met the senior most editors of the newspaper... All opportunities for defence and clarification were given, and all testimonies and material accepted. Senior editors thoroughly went over all the details overs many days. Do not under-estimate the difficulty and the extent of caution required with regard to a news report like this one which implicates one of the most powerful and entrenched lobbyist in the capital of India. For a long time when the report did not appear, I actually thought, well the obvious has happened! But the newspaper stood its ground and came out with a report presenting just those facts about which it had absolute evidence, and which met their very high reporting standards.
>
> So, you guys dont believe the statement of a full group of Indian civil society organisations, and you do not believe even the investigative news report in one of the most highly regarded newspapers of India, a report which was researched for 2 months. Well, in that case, it really must take something to make you believe - or perhaps, you have decided your position already, which is not to rock the MS (multistakeholder) boat as the highest priority, with all else paling in comparison.
>
> Anywhere else, a case of this kind, where first the whole civil society in an area makes a case, which is then supported by a well- researched news story, will be an open and shut case for global civil society to support. But not on this occasion...This is something you all guys need to answer. There is nothing more for us, of Indian civil society groups, to say... We are proud that we did a very difficult civil society task of exposing political corruption, took an 'insistent' public stand against it, and refused to be cowed down by cat calls that have become customary on this list whenever any issue implicating the power of big business or the US is raised.....
>
> One last point, though I think it may be superfluous, because you all know and understand it. People here have been saying that there is no evidence, which is quite surprising because this is one of few rare cases (and thus must be pushed hard and fully capitalised on) where there is actually considerable evidence of political corruption. Now, this is not a court proceeding, really. Think of when, say in our own countries, an appointment of an industry watchdog is made, or for an anti- corruption body. What is the standard of knowledge and evidence on which civil society will act on what they may regard as complete inappropriateness of an appointment - and perhaps write petitions, boycott proceedings, and so on... Just that level of knowledge and evidence is needed in this case as well. And it is as clear as daylight that such knowledge and evidence is indeed available. To act or not, and whether to denounce or make light of those who indeed are doing their civil society work, remains your own respective political decisions. I see that you are inviting Subi to remain undeterred and continue to engage with civil society here. We too are going to remain undeterred in doing what we see as the real CS work.
>
> Best regards
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I will not respond to Subi's 'clarifications', and I can understand her desperation as well the discomfort of those whose huge interests are affected by this.... However, at one place in her recent email there is a specific reference to my name, mentioning that her recent appointment to some position in the WG on India IGF was with my consent; this is lie typical of much of her statements ... There was no such consent, something which is very easy to verify because the room had around 30 people from gov, industry and CS, and there is also avaiable an official document coming from the meeting.
>
> I do however see that the inference from the quote of Marilyn Cade was an inadvertent error on the part of the journalist.
>
>
>> On Friday 18 April 2014 06:56 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> Absolutely agree with Ian, including the three wishes.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 04/18/2014 12:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>> Subi,
>>>
>>> It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here.
>>> I am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help
>>> to eventually clear the air.
>>>
>>> My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will
>>> continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in
>>> internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have
>>> discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different
>>> perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and
>>> valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to
>>> your post are, I hope you continue to engage here.
>>>
>>> My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way
>>> to move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not
>>> immediate, but it is important we do so.
>>>
>>> My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to fruition!
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Subi Chaturvedi <mailto:subi.igp at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM
>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>> *Subject:* [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related
>>> concerns raised by colleagues from India
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear CS colleagues and friends,
>>>
>>>
>>> This has reference to the article published in HT on 8^th April, 2014
>>> which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times.
>>>
>>> At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing
>>> solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong,
>>> misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind,
>>> as you'd realize after, going through this post.
>>>
>>> I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeatedand grave
>>> provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting
>>> all attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues
>>> that concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why
>>> we've invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time
>>> engaging with the process, in the first place.
>>>
>>> I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those
>>> who have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me
>>> publicly on this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without
>>> a minimal comment from me.I wish to assure global civil society that our
>>> views are being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple
>>> interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work
>>> across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my
>>> colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the
>>> situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real
>>> challenges ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we
>>> focus on the issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant
>>> oppurtunity for change.
>>>
>>> In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an
>>> amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless
>>> innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these
>>> issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My
>>> interventions are available publicly and a basic name search would
>>> reveal my interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in
>>> India. Many of these national meetings have been with my friends and
>>> respected colleagues from civil society in India and remain on their
>>> websites or any outreach platforms of communication. At the last India
>>> IGF MAG meeting where three of the co-signatories, who are also on the
>>> MAG, made interventions with me. Their interventions and mine
>>> capturedare in the official minutes. In the same meeting I was also
>>> appointed as the convenor of the Working group of the India IGF with the
>>> knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and with consensus from
>>> the floor.
>>>
>>> My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and
>>> communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my
>>> blog *http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/*
>>>
>>> Now Iask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said
>>> article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from
>>> Indian CS- was it appropriate toincludeme in this story related to
>>> surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than
>>> to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed.As identified in
>>> Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is
>>> ma
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140420/f0eda574/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list