[discuss] FW: [JoCI] Journal of Community Informatics V. 10, N. 1 (2014)

Sun Jan 19 17:58:00 UTC 2014

-----Original Message-----
>And no, there are no discussions of "root zones", "IPv6", IAB, ICANN or even 
>"enhanced cooperation" etc. etc. Just discussions/research of interest to those 
>on the Internet margins (and others)--in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, rural 
>USA, urban Sweden, Brazilian activists, Australian aboriginal story tellers and 
>concerning issues of the Digital Divide, building social and human capital via 
>the Internet, citizenship in an Internet era, ICTs and ageing, ICTs and youth.

I'm sorry but this is just posturing, pure and simple, the political exploitation of so-called marginalized groups by you claiming to speak for them in order to empower yourself. The obvious answer to your pleas is to ask you why you failed to put the names of people from these networks forward via the IGC, or via Giganet, both of which you have access to. All kinds of people who are not active participants in IGC were nominated via Giganet. 

You also overlook the obvious point that the 1net cc, and the Brazil meeting EMC, are supposed to perform specific tasks that will _facilitate_ full airing of diverse opinions at the actual Brazil meeting. In other words, you can't confuse the composition of the 1net cc, the HLC or the EMC with the composition and content of the Brazil meeting itself. I am not on any of these committees, but I do not feel "excluded" from the entire thing. The meeting process will allow me to submit and promote my own views. If decisions are made that appear to shut off discussion or exclude people from the meeting, then you can start complaining and I will join you, but to put so much emphasis on the formation of organizing committees seems misplaced to me.

If you and your CI group have something substantive to say about the institutional framework for global IG, say it. Submit it to the meeting by March 1 and send people to the meeting. 

> As I'm still waiting for an "official" or even any response from 1net I'll be turning my 
>attention to other things.  

What would you consider an "official" response, I wonder?  If you are looking for a response from me, the SC chair of Giganet, I will tell you that you failed to submit any names to the process and instead chose to run your own process that was completely detached from everything else, knowing full well that this was a confrontational approach. You then presented two names for the academic slots that were not even academics. How can anyone take this seriously? If we acceded to your unilateral demands, we would not be "including the marginalized" we would be giving special privileges to a self-appointed, self-anointed, wealthy, globe-trotting Canadian academic just because he claims to speak for the marginalized. It will not happen.

>A multistakeholderism that denies the opportunity for effective diversity and 
>refuses to accommodate the voices and interests of the marginalized is 
>not multistakeholderism it is tyranny and a fundamental denial of democracy.

This statement positions you as the embodiment of "the voices and interests of the marginalized." Have you no shame? 