[bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

[Mawaki Chango]

 Dear Sivasubramanian,

Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of
democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the former)
that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most recent case of
Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can happen to something
called democracy and formally designed as such, you bet that can happen to
a multistakeholder governance structure. After all, what does
"multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you think it will necessarily and
always function as a better democracy? Is there anything in the word that
suggests so? No. Can stakeholders turn out to form a smoke screen diverting
from the interests of the larger public or the people? You bet they can.

Mawaki

p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe...


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Mawaki
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Hello,
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that
>>>> it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration
>>>> to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>>>
>>>
>>> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>>> contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>>> Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the
>>> further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict
>>> the ideals of democracy???
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself
>> since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing
>> it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT
>> contradict..."
>>
>
> No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does not". The
> rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was making is that the
> premise underlying the condition was not valid. So I asked "Multi-stakeholder
> model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of
> democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of
> democracy???"
>
> Thank you
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process,
>>> open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the
>>> policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
>>> intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
>>> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
>>> lead to politicization of the process.
>>>
>>
>> This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special interests
>> or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in parentheses
>> in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy'
>> precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
>> minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and
>> consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to
>> democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby
>> the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
>> whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the
>> minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the
>> democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely
>> unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of
>> minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I
>> hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>>> In India the intention to protect minority interests began with policies
>>> of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for minorities
>>> in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social justice has
>>> also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the Government's
>>> openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least
>>> occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby
>>> group wins over the muted voice or silence of others. Certainly a global
>>> process can not create a situation where minorities would be neglected, but
>>> this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness
>>> of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"
>>>
>>> Sivasubramanian M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India +91 99524 03099
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140316/a52cc3af/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