Re: Interesting article on UN World Summit on the Information Society...

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the response. Comments in text.

-Thomas Clark

Tim Churches wrote:

On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 05:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 

Tim Churches wrote:
   

...and the US State Dept justification for the torpedoing of any mention
of the potential role of FOSS in addressing global inequities - see
http://www.newsforge.com/software/04/02/14/2146246.shtml
     

The UN has had, and will have, problems related to the 'special control' 
reserved by the
US when the UN was formed.
   

This is a bit off-topic, but the US is not alone in having special
powers under the UN charter - the other five permanent members of the UN
security council also have special powers. They also have substantial
commercial software industries (although not nearly as large as the US
software industry), but they didn't object to FOSS getting a look in.
 

The balance of political power in the world at times places some nations 
in positions
favorable to efforts like WSIS. The analogy is a bully attempting to 
intimidate a community.
Against a unified community the bully has little impact. The game of 
musical chairs can
put different nations into the 'bully chair'. Additionally, political 
capital may be more important
than special interest group contributions.

Since the US is certainly interested in 
fostering profit
within its own borders at anyone's expense 
   

Um, many people from Latin America, the Philippines and an increasing
number of other countries around the world might disagree that the US
interest in fostering the profitability of US companies is limited to
its own borders.
 

Meant to imply that domestic policies certainly support the fostering of 
business interests over
the general interests of the people.

it should not be a surprise 
that it would,
publicly or privately, torpedo any non-profit organization, etc that 
would benefit
anyone. It has always been the US SOP in business.
   

Yes, of course you are correct - US foreign policy has always been
mercenary to a large degree (not exclusively so, but often). What was
surprising was that the State Dept was so up-front about it. Would that
have happened under Clinton?
 

Clinton's foreign policies included cooperation, respect and mutual 
trade. It still favored businesses
but he was sensitive to global public impressions. Intimidation was 
rarely used.

Additionally, one cannot expect all governments to be 100% committed to any
effort, public or private. Looking at the record covering the years 2000 
up to the present
there have been many torpedoes launched. Again, So What?
   

The so what is that UN-sponsored policies and initiatives do actually
have some influence over the internal development policies and
bilateral/multilateral aid policies and directions of governments.
That's the pity.
 

I like the whole concept of a UN where nations are respected and treated 
equally. My
preference is for a UN situated physically in a nation such as Bermuda 
(year-around sun tans)
or alternatively, a rotating UN which has multiple homes (preferably in 
the warmer regions).

The current version has seen certain nations dominate and use it for 
their own purposes.
After awhile one expects certain responses from it. One gets tired of 
searching for new ways to
describe the output. So What? is better than Not Again?

'some influence' is insufficient! 'major influence' is better.

The best approach is a NGO for a worldwide IS with appropriate 
connections, donors
and legality, e.g., capable of establishing and maintaining appropriate 
Intellectual Property
rights, a substitute to the for-profit products and services. Sure beats 
jurisdictions where
legislation can be based upon business interests and the application of 
governmental
intervention is directed by selected parties tugging on certain levers.
   

Sure, but some of those government levers can be very powerful and have
wonderful effects if tugged in the right direction. The idea of a global
NGO is a good one, but s\needs to be complemenetd by multilateral
governmental suport for it - which is where the UN and things like the
WSIS come in.
 

I do not think that projects striving to benefit mankind as a whole such 
have to be like a
monkey pulling on levers waiting for a treat to drop out of the 
machine.Bugger that!

The WSIS was subject to this tugging from the onset. Its demise is expected.
   

Why is everyone so cynical - no, wrong waord - defeatist about UN
initiative? 

 

History!

Think about a global NGO organization and what it could do without 
'for-profit' intervention.
   

Indeed, especially if it were supported at arms length (via the UN) by a
few enlightened governments.
 

I have been waiting a long time for an 'enlightened government'. Haven't 
seen one yet.
The aliens will be here before that happens.