[bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br

[parminder]

On Monday 01 December 2014 02:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 01-Dec-14 04:56, Guru wrote:
>> The reason why many of us are concerned about Brazil participation in 
>> a space (WEF) that 'belongs' to the business elite of the world, is 
>> simply that many of us consider Brazil a global leader in supporting 
>> policies programmes for social justice, human rights, democracy. 
>
> And maybe they have come to the realization that is better to work 
> with the so-called elite and work to change them, than it is to remain 
> on the outside and vilify them.  Vilification may feel good and may 
> make one feel morally superior, but it gains very little in the long 
> run except for constant strife and division among ourselves.

If we  indeed generally are into being good and accommodative, perhaps 
we could be as giving and gracious with regard to the UN and its 
institutions as well, whether the ITU or a new possible space for 
Internet governance and policy. But we do not offer them similar 
considerations, do we. They are of course the bad guys. So bad that 
their vilification does not even qualify to be called as vilification.

UN or any such (institutionally) democratic form of global governance 
should be kept away from anything Internet! So, it is made to appear 
that the world will come to a halt  if the word Internet but gets into 
the ITRs of the ITU. And even if, at the ITU Plenipot, developing 
countries propose new studies and measures for data protection and 
against privacy intrusion, we look the other way, because, because, 
there are unknown terrors hiding behind anything that ITU does even if 
the intentions on the surface look good. Contribute in all ways possible 
to retard the WSIS plus 10 political process, the phase 3 of WSIS, and 
hope it just goes away somehow. (Look the other way when the developing 
countries seek a full WSIS style prep process, in Geneva, and developed 
countries simply refuse, and force on us just a small UN GA event.)

However, the WEF and the global elite deserves a chance! We should not 
vilify them! That to me and those of my kind of politics looks like a 
strange logic, but also something we have now come to expect in these 
spaces.

So, no, supporting the new WEF centred or initiated NMI is not just 
going along with anyone who is ready to work on key global IG issues. 
(We wont have any objection to any 'normal' WEF initiative in the IG 
space as they have in many other spaces.) /*This is a specific political 
choice exercised between the traditional global governance systems, like 
the UN based ones (how much ever in the need of reforms they might be) 
and new neoliberal governance systems like the WEF based one. The 
political responsibility for making this choice must be taken. */It 
cannot be dodged.

Do not make it look like an innocent choice; 'well let them also be 
given a chance when they are eager to contribute' kind of a thing. This 
is is basically one kind of global governance system rejected in the 
favour of other.... That is a stark political choice that a good part of 
IG related civil society made last week, and CGI.Br made, which we what 
we oppose. We have the right to be vociferous in our opposition, because 
both civil society actors and CGI.Br are responsible to the public.  But 
sure, of course we are the vilifiers in speaking of the WEF as 
representing the global elite, not those who foam at their mouth every 
time UN or the ITU is mentioned.

To anticipate the response I expect to this, something like, we will as 
happily participate in ITU/ UN if they too offer an equal footing 
arrangement like the WEF/ ICANN initiative has done. No, they cannot 
offer it, because unlike the WEF et al they are into serious business of 
global policy making in global public interest. Not in the business of 
obfuscating and retarding policy making, as neoliberal systems aim at 
(so that the powerful are left to their own devices). The same way as 
national political systems are into serious policy making and would 
never never, in no country, ever offer an equal footing arrangement at 
the policy making table. But sure WEF can offer this arrangement. 
Because it needs to make no policy, only resist legitimate policy 
making. And such resistance can very well get done through an equal 
footing arrangement.

Yes, morality is a big considerations in making these political choices, 
and not at all a bad word for us. It ought to be the bedrock of what 
motivates civil society not convenient political arrangements with the 
most powerful.

parminder





>
> avri
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141201/cb6c7375/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