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

[mclauglm at po.muohio.edu]

I originally sent the following message to Milton off-list, but it 
now seems appropriate to respond more publicly with this. And, I do 
so with the wish that we please stop the name-calling. Of course I 
will support your freedom to express your opinion that my and others' 
position is sectarian; at the same time, I will refrain from 
characterizing in a flippant fashion those views with which I differ.

Lisa


Milton,

Please offer a substantive definition of what constitutes "winning" 
and "losing"; otherwise, it is difficult to respond to the following. 
I assume that you're expressing something that has come out of your 
research. My research suggests that the private sector aligns more 
effectively with the US government and other more thoroughly 
neoliberal actors than with what we are calling civil society, this 
entity that has many more constituencies than owners and 
stockholders. Much of my argument is based on a very thorough 
analysis of what is the CCBI, a group that did not appear just in 
time for the WSIS but which has a long history of making agreements 
so long as it does not have to be accountable to anyone or any 
regulation. My arguments don't come from some knee-jerk reaction but 
from systematic analysis of the background of the ICC, the "parent 
company" of CCBI, along with analyses of private sector entity 
practices (Cisco, Hewlett Packard, and so on). I assume that your 
arguments do as well but that we occupy different places on the 
political spectrum, what with research being not as objective as some 
might claim. Perhaps we simply will have to agree to disagree. But 
from my perspective the point is that this CS-PS statement shakes 
down to an alliance in which a supposed "we" are asking not only that 
CS has greater access to the multi-stakeholder follow-up process but 
that the PS does as well. From my point of view, this nurtures 
market-led development, an approach that has already reinforced who 
are the winners and the losers in the digital world. The immediate 
thrust of my point is that we should have the right not to be 
represented as part of this "we" if we so choose. That's why I have 
requested endorsement via signatories to the statement.

Lisa




>  >>> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary