<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Georgia,
Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3"> - Please excuse
multiple posts - <br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Georgia,
Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Hi All,<br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Georgia,
Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">I did a piece on '</font><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3"><a
href="http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm"><font
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3">Global Internet
governance: a developing-country perspective</font>'</a> in
the current issue of the magazine '<a
href="http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288.htm">Third
World Resurgence</a>" which is published by the Third World
Network, Malaysia and Geneva. </font><font face="Georgia, Times
New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">The news about the WEF
NetMundial initiative came along </font><font face="Georgia,
Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">as I was writing it, and
I put my views on the initiative into a box in the article. In
fact, it fitted quite well with my arguments that I was making
in the article in any case. </font><font face="Georgia, Times
New Roman, Times, serif" size="3"> <br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Georgia,
Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">(The issue of Resurgence
has primary focus on global Internet governance, and contains
several articles on the issue. It can seen at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288.htm">http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288.htm</a> . The pdf
version of the magazine is at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288.htm">http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288.htm</a> . A
promotional email will be circulated separately.)<br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Georgia,
Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">parminder <br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Georgia,
Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">(<i><b>Excerpt from the
article</b></i> <i><b>related to the WEF NetMundial
initiative are be</b></i><i><b>low</b></i><i><b>)</b></i></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Georgia,
Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Even after Snowden had
so thoroughly rattled public perceptions about the Internet, and
there has been an intense desire to 'do something' about it,
which is why the world initially rallied behind Brazil in its
initiative, the status quo-ists were able to completely hijack
the NETmundial event. It should prima facie be considered
strange that a meeting called to address a global horror
unveiled by Snowden regarding the practices of the US government
and its corporations ended such that the meeting and its
outcomes were most celebrated by these very actors. Through the
practices at NETmundial and its outcome document, they were able
to lay out a roadmap which points in exactly the opposite
direction to where the developing countries need to go. It is
little surprise then that the next stop is the World Economic
Forum, where a new 'NETmundial Initiative' is now being cooked
up (see box). Such processes and meetings are sought to supplant
traditional, UN-based global governance fora.</font></p>
<table cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" border="1" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3"><b>From
NETmundial to the World Economic Forum</b></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Walking
the tightrope of seeking as wide a global legitimacy as
possible while still keeping things under full control,
the protectors of the status quo Internet governance
order now seem to be seeking the cover of the World
Economic Forum (WEF). A NETmundial Initiative1 has been
announced to be launched at WEF headquarters in Geneva
on 28 August 2014, 'to carry forward the cooperative
spirit of Sao Paulo [where the NETmundial meeting was
held] and work together to apply the NETmundial
Principles...'. As can be expected, the list of invited
participants is heavily dominated by Northern
corporations. A select group of government leaders and a
few civil society organisations are also invited. </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">In
this context, it will be useful to look at the kind of
views on global Internet governance that have been
expressed in WEF reports over the last few years. This
is what an analysis2 of the WEF's Global Redesign
Initiative (GRI) has to say about the initiative: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">"One
of GRI's major recommendations is that experiences
with "multistakeholder consultations" on global
matters should evolve into "multi-stakeholder
governance" arrangements. This transformation means
that non-state actors would no longer just provide
input to decision-makers (e.g. governments or
multinational corporations) but would actually be
responsible for making global policy decisions..."</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">'Their
recommendations for multistakeholder governance
include the introduction of parallel meetings with the
governing bodies of the WHO, UNESCO, and FAO where
non-state actors will hold independent sessions as a
complement to the official government meetings. GRI
also recommends a second new form of multi-stakeholder
governance for conflict zones in developing countries.
They propose that the non-state actors, particularly
the business community, join with the UN system to
jointly administer these conflict zones."</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">'There
are some sharp differences between "multistakeholder
consultations" and "multistakeholder governance", some
of which are often blurred by the loose use of the
term "multistakeholder"' .</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Multistakeholderism
apparently is a new, post-democratic form of governance
which gives big business a major, institutionalised,
political role and authority. Multistakeholderism in
this form is the preferred neoliberal model of
governance, whose application begins at the global level
and with Internet governance but is certainly meant to
be taken to national levels as well as to all sectors of
governance. The plan is dead serious, with clear calls
for setting up multistakeholder organisations that will
do policy-making and governance. To quote the WEF's
Global Agenda Council on the Future of the Internet from
GRI's final report3: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">'This
means designing multistakeholder structures for the
institutions that deal with global problems with an
online dimension. Thus the establishment of a
multistakeholder institution to address such issues as
Internet privacy, copyright, crime and dispute
resolution is necessary. The government voice would be
one among many, without always being the final
arbiter. And as ever more problems come to acquire an
online dimension, the multistakeholder institution
would become the default in international cooperation"
<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">The
continuing and inevitable digitalisation of our social
systems appears to be the chosen path for their
de-democratisation through multistakeholderisation
(read: the rule of big business, with some crumbs thrown
to other parties). <i> </i>
<br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">1
See Internet Governance Transparency Initiative website,
<a href="https://k52lcjc5fws3jbqf.onion.lt/">https://k52lcjc5fws3jbqf.onion.lt/</a></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">2
<a
href="http://www.umb.edu/gri/appraisal_of_wefs_perspectives_first_objective_enhanced_legitimacy/multistakeholderism">http://www.umb.edu/gri/appraisal_of_wefs_perspectives_first_objective_enhanced_<br>
legitimacy/multistakeholderism</a></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left"><font
face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">3
'Everybody's Business: Strengthening International
Cooperation in a More Interdependent World', pp. 317-21.
<a
href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRI_EverybodysBusiness_Report_2010.pdf">http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRI_EverybodysBusiness_Report_2010.pdf</a></font></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>