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

[Andrea Glorioso]

Suresh,

On Monday, March 17, 2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> It depends on actual public policy. As I recall it, he was against
> industry being consulted in decisions that involve them, and had several
> questions abou the whether the role of cgi.br was actually policy making
> or consultative in nature.
>
> These are hairs to split but there does appear to be a fundamental set of
> differences.
>
> Other statements made in the thread about google and competition policy
> lead me to believe that he feels involving industry in any capacity at all
> would be iniquitous.
>
>
> --srs (iPad)
>

I'm sorry to insist but either I'm not making myself clear or I'm not
understanding your reactions.

I'm not very much interested in discussing Parminder's position, for the
simple fact that I find it very clear. Whether I agree with it or not is
another matter and not the topic of my email.

What I'm interested in is the "other position" you referred to when
reacting to Parminder: what is precisely this other position and who
supports it.

I'm honestly trying to understand.

Best,

Andrea


>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 22:15, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
> Suresh,
>
> Parminder wrote: "no business actors, nether self-selected actors
> declaring themselves as civil society, can have a 'formal role' in 'actual
> public policy' 'decision making' - this role is only for those who derive
> their legitimacy from people and their collectives through some formal
> political process or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at
> present (their improvement being a different strand of political work)."
>
> That seems to me to be a clear position, irrespective of whether one
> agrees with it or not.
>
> You countered that "the majority of civil society and other stakeholders
> have already agreed upon [another position]".
>
> I was (and am) not clear which other position this is, who supports it and
> how it differs from Parminder's position.
>
> That's it.
>
> Andrea
> Even where he dismisses business as a valid stakeholder in a policy
> discussion?
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:42, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
> I read Parminder's remarks (and hence your objection to them, on which I
> was seeking clarifications) as rather more specific than having consensus
> on "multi-stakeholderism".
>
> Andrea
> On Mar 17, 2014 2:06 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
> There is, for example, a broad consensus about multistakeholderism, I hope?
>
> Parminder, from his previous emails, seems to have some strong
> disagreement with some aspects of MSism here.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 18:30, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
>  Suresh,
>
> I obviously have no intention to discuss the IGC statement, which is none
> of my business; but for my own education, could you clarify what it is
> precisely that the majority of civil society and other stakeholders (which
> ones?) have agreed to?
>
> Sorry if I missed something.
>
> Best,
>
> Andrea
> On Mar 17, 2014 12:41 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
> Parminder, an understanding that you may not share or agree with does not
> become any the less common because of that.   Put another way, it is what
> the majority of civil society and other stakeholders have already agreed
> upon, and these are things you have railed upon at length in the past.
>
> Protecting and encouraging minority views is fine - but when they are
> diametrically opposed to the consensus and there is absolutely no attempt
> to work towards the consensus, well - such encouragement can only go so far.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 17-Mar-2014, at 16:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>     Parminder,
>
>

-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140317/38a1b020/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