<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
"</font>To give you a feel of what I am talking about - I will
like to put democratic before multistakeholder in any procedural
document on IG - which btw is meant to cover local to national to
global levels. " <i>Parminder </i><br>
<font face="Verdana"><br>
</font> "Your dislike of multistakeholderism is duly noted.... " <i>Bill
Drake</i><br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
I keep hoping that you will give up this kind of mischievous
distortion of what I say/ write, especially since, when I give you
the appropriate response you are apt to jump and say things like 'i
am done with this discussion'.<br>
<br>
So, you really think I am expressing dislike of multistakeholderism
when I say that 'democratic' should go before 'multistakeholderism'
in any governance procedural document, right. Ok, in that case, I
dislike multistakeholderism, because my primary adherence is indeed
to democracy. If anyone is either saying that mentioning democracy
effects multistakeholderism, or even that democracy does not stand
at a higher pedestal than multistakeholderism, as you clearly
suggest, then i would gladly give up that particular version of
multistakeholderism. (I however think that multistakeholderism is an
expression of participatory aspects and processes of democracy, but
you manifestly dont seem to think so.)<br>
<br>
In the circumstances, I would also be right to say; well, Bill, your
dislike of democracy is duly taken note of. I am indeed very
disconcerted with an increasing expression of doubts and dislikes
about democracy that I see in the IG space. Before we, at IT for
Change, fight anything, we will address and fight that. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana"><br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 16 October 2012 06:02 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Parminder
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Greetings from ICANN Toronto, where some of us are trying to
push the inclusion of human rights in actual governance
processes.<br>
<div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:46 AM, parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; font-size: medium; ">On the other hand, if we just
want to give a list of preachments to the ITU on how
should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is
much more doable.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT
statement. Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful
earlier in the process, e.g. by pressing governments to agree
to the landmark, watershed, historic (quoting the press
office) release of a document that had already been leaked and
widely accessed. If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was
news. And more generally, those statements made senior staff
who'd previously declared they'd be unaffected by any
muttering among the riff raff launch an unprecedented
counter-offensive perception management gambit, complete with
a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling critics that
their concerns are all myths. So all good.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What's needed now though is something different—less meta,
more focused on specific aspects of Dubai. There's a proposal
that the conference chair declare some sessions open to the
public. One imagines there will be push back from the usual
suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case. Beyond this,
I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that could be
problematic for the Internet and offer substantive
counterpoints. Ideally, these should acknowledge that in some
cases governments may have real legitimate concerns, but point
out the downsides of overreach and that there are other, more
effective ways to deal with them than via a multilateral
treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and
content. If we do that, at least some delegations might have
a look before tossing the responses to the ITU's public
comment call into the trash, and that would establish another
reference point for delegates carrying similar messages. BTW,
such a statement could also feed into the CIR main session in
Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As to the other statement, I don't believe that focusing on
the procedural elements would be unproductive and of less
value than a more substantive statement, which I suspect would
prove a bit difficult to break new and consensual ground on.
Your dislike of multistakeholderism is duly noted, but among
the wider community of IG mavens the procedural aspects have
consistently proven easier to reach consensus on, not only
within CS, but with other stakeholders as well. This was
demonstrated throughout WSIS and the IGF's early years. And
the good work done by APC and partners on this has not been
fully amplified and leveraged, and there's never been more of
a need to be saying such things. One need look no further
than the WCIT and the London Process to see why. Such a
statement can feed in directly to the Taking Stock and Way
Forward main session. So I'd go with the model this group has
worked out through collaboration facilitated by Jeremy, rather
than toss it aside.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>