[governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not

Sun Sep 28 05:34:14 EDT 2014

Correct. Just pointing out that hardly anyone attends ig events from their 
personal fortune. You don't either, as you say.

Several of those people you're disparaging have a well earned and 
established reputation for independence and  specifically don't speak for 
the parties that fund them

Your claiming that such people - multistakeholder community as you so 
dismissively call them - are paid stooges - is flat out wrong. Holier than 
though.

They operate under the very same funding model your organization does, 
regardless of whether they are part of the vast majority that disagrees 
with you.

On 28 September 2014 2:30:06 pm parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Sunday 28 September 2014 12:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
> > An utterly disingenuous take on a shallow article
> >
> > Also who is actually paying the various people in the multistakeholder
> > community?
> >
> > You too are a stakeholder and doubtless the money you spend on airfare
> > to various igov events doesn't materialize from thin air
> >
>
> The only time I will post to this particular post-er - simply bec this
> is a matter of public accountability, and all kinds make the public
> which however does not reduce the accountability.
>
>   All of mine and IT for Change's funding are on our website
> (www.ITforChange.net , see annual reports) , we also provide a 'your
> right to know' button which encourages anyone to ask us questions about
> us which we promise to respond to in 15 days. We think such transparency
> and accountability is basic to civil society and those who are not ready
> to do so have no right to claim to be working for public interest.
> (Except in the extreme cases when such transparency would hurt the
> particular public interest that any group works for, which is rare, and
> the exception cannot be extended to be the rule. The rule is transparency.)
> Time and again we have encouraged all civil society individuals and
> groups in the (highly political) IG space to do the same, but got little
> response, sometime even aggressively negative response. This was one of
> the main reason of estrangement of some people with bestbits group's
> leadership, but people were willing to make members unhappy and decrease
> their engagement then take up the issue of funding transparency.
>
> parminder
>
>
> > So what is the objection here?
> >
> > On 28 September 2014 12:05:02 pm parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/fast-lane-slow-lane--no-l_b_5865996.html
> >>
> >> This article tell you what non regulation of the Internet is about,
> >> and it still does not even talk about the free run that global
> >> Internet monopolies seeks.
> >>
> >> No, it is not about "Internet freedom" - that is a clever cover up,
> >> but many of us are all just too eager to believe.
> >>
> >> (Freedom of expression is important but of course US gov and US
> >> corporations have no real interest in it.)
> >>
> >> In 1997, the United Nations adopted the Model Law on Electronic
> >> Commerce that had been developed by the UN Commission on
> >> International Trade Law. In fact the India's IT Act 2000, which is
> >> still the omnibus law in India governing electronic transactions,
> >> makes reference to this Model Law in its preamble.
> >>
> >> Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not
> >> discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication
> >> and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious
> >> question for me? Please, I am serious.
> >>
> >> But no, that will be blasphemy. Those are all attempts by governments
> >> to take over the Internet, watch out! Why? Because US tell us so. And
> >> so many of us are happy to take our cues from the US, and its
> >> political and corporate allies. (Has it anything to do with from
> >> where the money flows?).
> >>
> >> We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a model law on
> >> IP based telecommunications, and on net neutrality.
> >>
> >> But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, and a lot
> >> of resources thrown into it. The musical for the next meeting in
> >> Busan in Korea has already started. (
> >> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/09/the-state-departments-plan-to-spark-a-global-sopa-style-uprising-around-internet-governance/
> >> ). Wait and see how the "multistakeholder community" that mystical
> >> organism, dances to one tune, that which emanates from the US. I feel
> >> pity for all the risks that Snowden took and the sacrifices he made.
> >>
> >>  parminder
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140928/1d1f4b03/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