[governance] Why?

ymshana2003 ymshana2003 at gmail.com
Tue May 19 16:28:53 EDT 2015 

Wow...it sounds louder !
I had a say in support of this but "the Moderator has to filter my comments in case they are an Alien called Yassin..:-):-). That shows an early crack in the systems unless ones name is 'labelled'..

Anyhow....good stuff going on.
Regards. Yassin.


Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> 
Date:19/05/2015  18:40  (GMT+02:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Kleinwachter Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 
Cc: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>,David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>,BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,"Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org> 
Subject: Re: [governance] Why? 

All,

I strongly agree with what Wolfgang says below.

I've been very involved in civil society projects in the past, and I have been following these lists for years and from time to time, contributing significantly to them.  I've stopped contributing to the lists because I see little purpose in it.  They appear to focus mostly on who is undisputedly right in a variety of definitions and intellectual arguments. 

Unless there are, first and foremost, some relatively shared and agreed upon achievable goals, these discussions become nothing more than a conversation.  If you have the time, and are interested in the topic, then you join the conversation.  But let's not confuse such a conversation with serious consideration of progress toward goals. 

Once you have goals that are sufficiently clearly articulated and accepted, then you need to agree on the various means of working toward achieving them.

Perhaps I'm not thinking in the right way about this subject, but I don't see either of the above processes taking place in these lists.  Bickering has taken over.  Without goals and a plan, I personally don't see much relevance or value in the current milieu of unpleasant exchanges of messages.  

George



On May 19, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003? 
> 
> The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion. 
> 
> My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
> An: David Cake
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
>> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
>> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.
> 
> David
> If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
> were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
> spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
> structure....
> 
> The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
> main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
> inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."
> 
> I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
> replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
> always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
> of workshop.
> 
> I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
> structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
> 'structure' of a workshop.
> 
> But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
> certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
> lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)
> 
> 
>> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
>> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
>> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
>> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
>> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
>> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
>> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
>> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>> 
>> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
>> a problematic term.
> 
> There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
> interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
> as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that 
> 'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
> easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
> public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
> politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
> obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
> they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
> not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
> 'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
> problematic'.
> 
> 
>> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
>> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
>> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
>> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
>> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
>> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
>> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
>> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
>> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
>> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
>> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
>> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
>> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
>> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
>> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
>> lobby group. 
>> 
>> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
>> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
>> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
>> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
>> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
>> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
>> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
>> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
>> much deeper discussion.
> 
> Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
> property and public interest', here is the list of participants
> <http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
> the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
> scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
> hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
> oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
> this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
> understand the term in the Internet governance space.
> /*
> *//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
> public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
> assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
> public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
> (called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
> or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
> participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
> like to answer this key question.*/
> 
> As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
> exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
> (more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
> (more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
> but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>> 
>> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
>> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
>> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.
> 
> David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
> somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
> proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
> were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
> not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
> UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
> use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
> because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
> see as carrying any baggage).
> 
> The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
> problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
> decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
> (as carrying baggage) and so on.....
> 
> Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
> process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
> theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
> do much.
> 
> parminder
> 
>> 
>> Regards 
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>> 
>>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>>> Interest' ?
>>> 
>>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>> 
>>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>> 
>>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>>> society will have to answer to history.
>>> 
>>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>>> importanr congress.
>>> 
>>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>>> who may be interested.
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>>> might be interested.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Geetha.
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>>> panels and workshops.
>>>> 
>>>> The application form is available now at
>>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>> 
>>>> Deadlines
>>>> 
>>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>> 
>>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>> 
>>>> Application Information
>>>> 
>>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>>> the form.
>>>> 
>>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>> 
>>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>>> countries.
>>>> 
>>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>> 
>>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>> 
>>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>> 
>>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>> 
>>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>> 
>>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>> 
>>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>> 
>>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>>> interest.
>>>> 
>>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>>> .
>>>> 
>>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>> 
>>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>> 
>>>> Organisation
>>>> 
>>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>> 
>>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>> 
>>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>> 
>>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>> 
>>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20150519/510fdd9b/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