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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Multistakeholderism with industry, government and civil society being engaged with not treated as an adversary on general principles.

A policy of not according primacy to any one of the stakeholders, or demanding a stake for the sake of a stake as opposed to a genuine desire to participate in a shared process 

Policy advocacy rather than political maneuvring

When I assume consensus here, it is because a majority of this caucus does exhibit these traits above and evidences them in their submissions, and in their interaction with other stakeholder groups.

--srs (iPad)

> On 17-Mar-2014, at 23:16, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> 
> 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/20140318/1cdab01b/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