[governance] <nettime> VW
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Oct 2 09:49:33 EDT 2015
McTim
We have since long given up arguing with each other, and I am responding
only bec you accuse me of trolling.
On Friday 02 October 2015 07:01 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday 28 September 2015 10:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> snip
>> No, not really that at all. They have to be involved because they are
>> already involved. For now, the decisions of companies like Facebook and
>> Google about their terms of service and so on are de facto transnational
>> rules for the Internet, at least as much as the rules that governments
>> make (collectively or individually). So it impossible to disentangle
>> these companies from the process of situating those rules within a more
>> accountable global framework of principle.
>
> Jeremy, basically you are accepting that, in your view, democracy
> is no longer feasible or to be preferred, or both, in matters of
> Internet governance.
>
>
>
>
> Now you are just trolling, Jeremy neither said nor meant what you are
> saying.
Giving corporates a direct role in public policy making is *not*
democratic. In a democracy every person has an equal role to every other
person, and only natural persons have a political role. Now, if either
you or Jeremy wants to say that this is not the definition of democracy,
that is a separate debate, which too I am happy to pursue. Note that
Jeremy is justifying here ' direct involvement' of corporates in
governance on the basis that they hold the maximal existing power in the
digital realm.
>
> He is merely pointing out the obvious reality.
As was the reality in times of early evolution of democracy that a few
feudal lords held most of the land, which still was the most important
productive resource.... So does this reality then mean that one should
support the feudal insistence on much greater political power than
ordinary beings?
parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> That is a remarkable claim/ acceptance, even though it is what has
> always underpinned the equal footing multi-stakeholder model.
>
>
> Disagree. What underpins the multi-equal stakeholder model is the
> collaborative ethos of the early Internet.
>
> The rest of your argument is based on the above flawed premises, and
> so needs no comment.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> McTim
>
>
>
> To that extent I commend your honesty and integrity which is much
> more than what can be said about most other supporters of the
> equal footing model who tend to simply disappear from any
> discussion when they are asked to come down to actual implications
> (both theoretical and practical) of such a model.
>
> That compliment for honesty and forthrightness having been paid,
> may I ask you a question. How is your assertion different from the
> claims of the feudal class during early days of the evolution of
> democracy, say, In England, for the biggest pie of the national
> level political decision making power, on the basis that they
> owned large-scale landed property, and thus held control over the
> key productive resources of that time - thereby also setting the
> de facto rules in most aspects of contemporary social life, ...
> This can be seen the history of the House of Lords, and also the
> fact that for a very long time ownership of property was a
> condition of enfranchisement....
>
> What you are advocating, albeit by presenting it as something
> inevitable, I see is exactly the same... Corporates today 'own'
> the biggest chunks of what are the contemporary key productive
> resources, and of what on the Internet can comparably be called
> as digital estate and thus setting in your words 'de facto
> transnational rules for the Internet'. You give this as the logic
> for why we should accept them to be given a highly
> disproportionate role in the political governance of the Internet
> and the associated phenomenon. I say disproportionate because
> every shareholder, big or small, of these companies does already
> have a political role equal to every other person (minus the
> difference that power of various resources make, but lets
> disregard that for the moment) .
>
> What you are presenting is directly a case for digital fedualism,
> which equal footing multistakeholderism of course really is. I am
> astonished that such a philosophy can have such widespread support
> as equal footing multistakeholderism indeed has in some very
> dominant circles of Internet governance.
>
> Aligning political power to economic power, at institutional
> levels and not just in hidden, informal ways which have always
> existed, is what the current global neoliberal design currently
> is. (An important traditional role of political power has been to
> regulate and rein in the execesses of economic power.) The World
> Economic Forum is often considered as its key global nerve centre,
> although I'd say it will be more factual to say that the primary
> nerve centre is in fact still solidly inside the US economic and
> political establishments. This most important global problem and
> danger is extensively recognised among global civil society
> movements, and is actively resisted. It is the fact that these
> dangerous global developments are, on the other hand, actually
> supported by a big chunk of civil society in the Internet
> governance space which creates a significant dissonance that this
> space has with the mainstream global civil society.
>
> parminder
>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20151002/9337bf43/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