[WSIS CS-Plenary] YJ's objection and the CS-PS statement

[Milton Mueller]

>>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 2/25/2005 5:28:28 AM >>>
>Yes, Milton, Lisa's message is not based on a substantive critique 
>of the statement itself, but rather on the fact that it is a CS-PS 
>joint statement. I share Lisa's position, and my organization wont 
>sign either such a document.

I find this attitude sectarian but have no objection to the request 
to have the statement support indicated by signatures, so that those
who wish to disaffiliate can make it clear.

>A CS-PS joint statement is different from a statement on a specific 
>issue signed by some CS organizations together with some private
sector 
>organizations, in that the former implies a kind of coalition and, 

I disagree. I saw this as a statement on a specific issue, namely 
multi-stakholderism going forward with WSIS.

>And yes, the private sector is heterogeneous, but perhaps not as 
>much as CS,

The "other" is always more homogeneous than "we" are, isn't it? ;-)  
Anyway, as you indicated, the line between PS and CS
depends on one's theory of CS. 

>Furthermore, I've a question for you, Milton : you said "When most 
>activists in CS and PS can agree [...] they win. When most activists
in 
>CS are aligned against government(s) and PS, they lose. Think about 
>it." What do you mean exactly? 

It seems fairly obvious: when you have allies you are strong. But I
will explain further with a concrete example. Take the IPR enforcement
and privacy tension. When PS telephone companies support CS privacy
activists in resisting demands of IPR holders to turn over records of
telecom usage, CS privacy advocates are stronger. But when virtually all
PS and governments decided the domain name system had to be
re-engineered to support trademark protection, that agenda went through
like steamroller.  When virtually all of business resists USG demands to
embed a backdoor for surveillance in all telecom equipment, and they are
joined by CS civil liberties advocates, the government's agenda was
rolled back (to some degree). But when PS opposition dissolves e.g. in
the wake of 9/11, then privacy loses very quickly. So, to repeat, if
there are PS allies use them.

>Should we fight only for issues on which 
>we may agree with private sector and, even better, 
>with governements too? 

Another way to phrase this question: are you stupid and gutless ,
Milton? Um, no. I've spent enough time fighting the PS on particular
issues. No, I am assuming that we set our own agenda, but when there are
PS allies out there who agree with it, we work with them. Moreover, I
will actively challenge CS elements with ideological convictions that PS
is inherently evil and should be shunned. because that's wrong,
self-isolating and self-defeating.

>My question is most probably for after PrepCom2, when we'll have time

>to discuss in deeper details this kind of issues, like 
>"multistakeholderism", "consensus", "civil society"... :-)

I agree that "multi-stakeholderism" is a deeply unsatisfactory
formulation, which is why IGP has been trying to stimulate discussion of
new, post-WSIS institutional arrangement, e.g. framework conventions,
global alliances, democratic voting, etc. I have dissected in merciless
detail the nonsensical and manipulative use of the term "consensus" in
ICANN context, if you read my book. 

--MM


Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org