[governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Sun Feb 9 06:04:29 EST 2014
Attack it too much and you risk a constructive engagement with industry stakeholders. So please do be careful to attack dominance where it actually exist, rather than condemn corporations on general principles. I know you won't, Ian, but there are several people with rather less scruples.
--srs (iPad)
> On 09-Feb-2014, at 14:50, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
> I think we see the problem differently.
>
> To me the central problem here is the power of corporations to influence and
> dictate policy in their own interests. I have plenty of evidence that the
> nation state system we call democracy as universally practiced AND
> multistakeholderism are both highly susceptible to this power. So in this
> respect neither solves my basic problem. And at this level there is not much
> point in talking about what democracy should be or what multistakeholderism
> should be - both are susceptible to this problem and unable to deal with it.
>
> Tell me - if we abandon multistakeholderism, will the corporate dominance
> problem disappear? Of course not. And if you all get up in your country tomorrow and vote in another government, will the problem disappear? Of course not.
>
>
> I conclude that the real problem is not the systems of governance, but the power of corporations to overpower representative systems.
>
> The most effective counters I know are in the form of social activism and
> advocacy. In that respect, the most powerful thing civil society can do is
> to speak and act forcefully with one voice against the major problems we
> face. And in the Internet governance area, corporate dominance is very high
> on my list. Along with unilateral governmental dominance in some areas.
>
>
> I think we divert our energies if we attack multistakeholderism instead of corporate dominance. But equally, I think we must clearly point out the dangers of corporate dominance in a multistakeholder system.
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 7:06 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
> mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>
>
>> On Sunday 09 February 2014 12:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of
>> multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real
>> and present danger.
>>
>> But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we
>> call democracy?
>
> Ian
>
> This is a highly dangerous statement to make... What we know as
> democracy and call democracy is for us - the people - to claim.. Not to
> call names, and throw away. And people have risen and often claimed it,
> as even some recent events have shown, and more will come, with the
> Internet no doubt playing a big role... To speak so loosely about
> democracy - that it is the 'this bad system' or that, is as I said
> dangerous, and basically giving the priceless human heritage of
> democracy away. We have to be very careful to be talking about things
> that are so high and valued as democracy.
>
> So, I really do not understand what you mean to say about 'same
> danger'... You cannot rise and claim corporatist MSism as you can claim
> democracy. Is it a small difference. Recently, a group, less than a year
> old, which was protesting corruption on the roads, and being openly
> ridiculed as useless and powerless, took control of the government of
> New Delhi by wining elections. This was done entirely through crowd
> sourced money and volunteers. Can you think of a similar process for
> taking over Davos! But, if you are talking about just the global level
> democracy or the absence of it, yes , lets talk about it. I am ready for
> the most drastic proposal, as long as it does not involve giving
> privileged positions to the already extra-ordinarily powerful global
> corporations. Ian, I really mean it. Lets discuss global democracy. That
> is the discussion to have.
>
> But before that let us issue a clear statement that we are against what
> is happening in the name of MSism, which is really WEF-ism or Davos-ism.
> That we are against giving any special political privilege to global
> corporates. That we strongly condemn and disassociate from all those
> who openly say (including on these lists) that google should vote at the
> same level as a country government in global policy making. Lets get
> together and say all this... And then also say what is wrong with the UN
> and what we want changed. That is the discussion we need to have.
>
> BTW, whenever some people, Wolfgang for instance, have sought that G 20
> - which includes India - takes up a special role in global IG, I have
> opposed it, This is where UN is more democratic than a Davos or G 20.
> Therefore our critiques and positions should be context specific and
> pragmatic, to push things in the right direction rather than the wrong
> direction. That is our political responsibility. Simply put, going for
> Davos kind of governance solutions - which, sorry to say, I think most
> IG civil society is abetting - is the 'wrong direction' to push. UN
> reform on the other hand is the 'right direction' to push. The choice,
> as actually presented, I see is between the two. And as responsible
> political actors we have to negotiate our way - however idealistic in
> its final form - through the given landscape where are situated at the
> moment, and taking stock of the forces that we can see and feel at work.
>
> If you or someone else has a third directions, clearly different from
> the two above, please mention that... I see MIlton's proposals, Jeremy's
> MIC proposal, some proposals from Joana's organisation, etc, all of
> which give corporates a voting role, really simply going in the
> direction that Davos-ists want things to go. They - the Davos-ists -
> know that it is tough to simply wipe out the few hundred years of
> history behind democracy, and the strength it therefore posses.. To
> them, these civil society proposals, where there is a lot of
> goodly-goody stuff, but the basic point is that corporates have policy
> votes, is just the thing to go for... Once there, they know how to make
> it entirely their show with some bones thrown occasionally here and
> there to those who need to be co-pted. A historic point like the present
> one requires a response that fits contextually, and nudge things in the
> right direction. Each of us has to convince ourselves whether our acts
> are contributing to the right direction or the wrong one.. And we have
> also to convince others and the world, as a group with privileged access
> to policy process, which we claim on behalf of the people of the world.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>> In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media
>> telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long
>> history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to
>> corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent
>> outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties.
>> The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse
>> in some other countries.
>>
>> And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable
>> arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.
>>
>> The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating as regards
>> nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that
>> should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business
>> interests from crowding the public out of the tent ".
>>
>> I couldn't agree more.
>>
>> For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any
>> form of governance, highly corruptible .
>>
>> The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in
>> about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that
>> in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of
>> WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was
>> “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the
>> setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>> (ICANN)".
>>
>> It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was
>> retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a
>> central design element.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>
>>
>> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
>>
>> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
>>
>> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
>>
>> Hope civil society groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late,
>> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full
>>> accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who
>>> equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow
>>> being "opposition" to those processes.
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>>>> multistakeholderism)
>>>
>>> Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my
>>> greater concerns.
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list