[bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14
Guru गुरु
Guru at ITforChange.net
Mon Mar 17 01:52:35 EDT 2014
well said, Mawaki
regards
Guru
On 03/17/2014 03:23 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> 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 <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Mawaki
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango
> <kichango at gmail.com <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M
> <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto: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 <tel:%2B91%2099524%2003099>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/48c08ed6/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