[governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br

[parminder at itforchange.net]

Dear Carlos,

Lets be fair in our comparison. Lula going to Davos is not at all
comparable to Brazil joining WEF for a new global governance platform for
the Internet. Do you really not see the difference here? (Although it is
instructive that many people in Brazil opposed Lula even going to the
WEF!)

JNC has nothing against WEF as a clique of global big business advocating
their view of how the world should be, or  how it should be governed.

JNC would even be happy to speak at Davos to share its own views on this
matter, and/ or other matters. It would also be glad to hear other views
and engage in a discussion,

So you see, just going to Davos is not the issue. Lula's visit to Davos is
an absolutely unviable justification for Brazil's support for NMI.

Carlos, you know what NMI is, right. It is an effort to fill an
increasingly undeniable 'gap' about the need to address and resolve many
pressing global IG issues, especially the ones which fall on the 'public
policy' or non-technical side. There is enough matter around testifying to
this fact for me to have to quote specific texts for you. And they need to
act NOW, because they are afraid of and must anticipate other possible
processes like the WSIS plus 10 one, which could be around the corner.

This is not at all like Lula going to Davis to give his vision of the
world to those assembled at Davos.  It is about a new governance paradigm,
platform and system. And our fight is against that new global governance
paradigm, and our appeal to Brazil gov and CGI is not to contribute to
building this new global governance paradigm that is run by the global
elite, with some cooptations here and there to garner some amount of
legitimacy. This is as clear as daylight.

I am stressing this point because CGI.Br which is joining in as a partner
of what is essentially an ICANN-WEF game must give us a clearer view of
what they think and know of this initiative. It will be such a pity if
they join in ignorance, and even more, if others follow them in ignorance.

The JNC statement on the NMI (
http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan ) quotes WEF texts on
how they seek co-governance by corporations and governments on actual
public policy issues, how the IG space is the ideal place to start with
such an governance -by-elite model, and as digitalisation of all social
systems take place, this model becomes the default for all areas and
sectors. Can the Brazil government and CGI.Br really profess ignorance
about these facts. If not, what is their response to these regressive
global governance models which strike at the heart of democracy that the
WEF professes, and of which the NMI is no doubt a lead element?

We need to discuss these issues. It is not enough to make 
mother-and-applepie statements like CGI.Br will never join a top-down
initiative. One cannot change the WEF view and scheme for the world just
by using terms like bottom-up in places where they simply do not belong.
In fact it is so embarrassing that this term is being used anywhere near
the vicinity of WEF at all, which was famously described as fat cats
meeting in snow.

I think Brazil and CGI.Br are putting at stake their hard won global
reputation and goodwill. I just consider it my duty to forewarn them,
especially since as you know I and my organization have long worked
closely with them on many issues.

Best regards

Parminder



> Dear people,
>
> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. As
> usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with massive
> acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco the
> thousands of people cheering Lula.
>
>  From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of
> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of
> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort of
> scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, NGOs
> and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among them) --
> our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and there is
> no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the reigns
> of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be the other
> way around.
>
> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of
> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different
> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> (*) See, for example, this report:
> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation
>
> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>>
>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now
>>> come
>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN
>>> (basically
>>> doing US's bidding) game.
>>
>> Disappointed?  My heart bleeds for you, to be sure.
>>
>>
>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world
>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons
>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic
>>> and
>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the
>>> global level!
>>>
>>
>> Now you call them naïve.   How incredibly patronizing.
>>
>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes
>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds that
>> you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure
>> demagoguery.  Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away
>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject.
>>
>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian
>>> government and CGI.Br has,  something that I find to be such a great
>>> loss,
>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community
>>> has consistently  supported you, but this support cannot be taken for
>>
>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive
>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to push,
>> and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share.
>>
>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out
>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance
>>> initiative.*
>>>
>>
>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists that
>> caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from such
>> support.
>>
>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together
>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer
>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests
>>> and fate of the people of the world,  and of the future generations.
>>> Let
>>
>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness.  Do
>> stop trying to speak for civil society at large.  You don't and have
>> never represented it all.
>>
>> --srs
>>
>
>



-------------- 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