[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Fri Nov 21 19:51:29 EST 2014
Canting jargon remains canting jargon. I also have a bit of a problem with groups having a regressively extreme left ideology labeling themselves progressive, or purveyors of "science studies" labeling themselves "academia" but those are debates for other fora.
--srs (iPad)
> On 21-Nov-2014, at 22:52, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As anyone with any familiarity with Civil Society will know, the term Neo-liberal is a very common term of art in Civil Society analyses particularly outside of the 5 Eyes consortia countries.
>
> The current discussions concerning neo-liberalism in public policy areas generally link directly back to “the Washington Consensus” which has come to be understood as advocating “market fundamentalist” approaches to public policy and public goods for example the privatization of water supplies (often actively promoted by companies such as Nestle) which led to virtual civil war in Bolivia; the enforced privatization of health care in much of West Africa which has been directly linked to the failure to immediately apprehend and control Ebola in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone; the privatization and monetization of school systems throughout Africa which have led to steep declines in literacy levels throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa and other such “contributions" to the public good.
>
> For a more direct linkage of these discussions concerning neo-liberalism to IG see http://alainet.org/active/73028
>
> M
>
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:21 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: Guru; Sivasubramanian M
> Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
>
>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:35 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>
> Even within civil society, include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like neoliberal
>
> As I said on another list recently, that particular bit of jargon irritates me no end. In part because you'd hope that some of us have at least a nodding familiarity with international relations theory, given how much it relates to IG, and in IR theory the term neoliberal means something quite different to its economic meaning. Yet JNC members, in particular, tend to use the term like punctuation, with no indication of any awareness of the ambiguity.
>
> Cheers
> David
>
>
> I suppose it is a mercy that 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days.
>
> On November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Guru,
>
> (You (Guru) said:
> WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance
>
> If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group.
>
> Seriously, i
> f WSIS had committed to build a "
> people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society
> ", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business?
>
>
> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways.
>
> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF
> .
>
> WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves.
> Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w
> e could
> eventually
> work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Dear Mawaki
>
> I would like to cite from two sources:
>
> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html (the very first two clauses)
>
> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits.
>
> I now will cite from the WEF site - http://www.weforum.org/our-members
>
> Begin
> Our Members
> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities.
> End
>
> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation
>
> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate in the NMI.
>
> thanks and regards
> Guru
>
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> Director, IT for Change
> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890
> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum
>
>
> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat
> > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before
> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with
> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI
> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are
> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI
> > Coordination Council.
> >
> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG
> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or
> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been
> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the
> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be
> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about
> > our participation in the NMI process.
> >
> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief.
> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if
> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you
> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we
> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I
> > mean.)
> >
> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards.
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141122/24b1f45a/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