<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/01/13 10:11, michael gurstein
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In going through the FOURTH DRAFT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S REPORT for the
Fifth World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology
Policy Forum 2013 (WTPF) <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/report-sg.aspx">http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/report-sg.aspx</a>
I came across this, below as the definition of multi-stakeholderism as
(presumably) currently understood in various UN fora (it is what was used, I
believe at WSIS... note particularly d) iii. below...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
That part is all well and good, but the part that worries me (sorry
if you already heard from me about this on another list) is the
treatment of "The Multi-stakeholder Model" in the draft, in which it
is correctly stated that "A divergence in opinion is observed in the
implementation of the WSIS multistakeholder model in the current
Internet governance ecosystem", but that this is a divergence
between only two views, one of which is that "the current governance
of the Internet is sufficiently multistakeholder and inclusive in
terms of involvement of all stakeholder groups" (attributed to
Cisco, UK, USA and ISOC), and the second (attributed to Saudi Arabia
and Sudan and Algeria!) that "with regards to international
Internet-related public policy, the role of one stakeholder –
Governments – has not been allowed to evolve according to WSIS
principles".<br>
<br>
What about the third, missing view - that the current governance of
the Internet is NOT sufficiently multistakeholder and inclusive in
terms of involvement of all stakeholder groups, but that rather than
governments being left out, it is civil society! We can point to so
many examples of this, beginning at the ITU itself.<br>
<br>
I think the report needs to be changed to correct this erroneous
characteristion of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet
governance. However the ITU is only receiving submissions from
members (there is an open platform for general comments, but they
won't be received as direct inputs to the SG's report). We will
therefore need to put in our submission either through a friendly
government (those who were members of delegations at WCIT will
already have these connections), or through a sector member.
Consumers International has applied for sector membership, but our
application does not come up for consideration until June. We do
have a CI member who is a sector member, but is there anyone else on
this list who also is (and who is less status-quoist than ISOC)? If
not I will work with my member on some text.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><b>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</p>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><b>Your rights, our mission
– download CI's Strategy 2015:</b> <a
href="http://consint.info/RightsMission">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">@Consumers_Int | <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#999999">Read our <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print
this email unless necessary.</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>