<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Hi John<br>
<br>
The kind of issues that you raise are among the ones that will be
discussed. So we take your input into the session.. However, all
the points that you mention are such that everyone here will agree
should be part of all policy making processes.. But the real
issue, in my view, lies elsewhere. What is the role of non gov
participants - especially but not only private companies - in
situations where actual public policy making is involved - real
public policy which directly affects people's important interests,
and somewhere/ somehow also involves use of corecive force in some
way or the other. <br>
<br>
Say, if net neutrality regulation is being developed in a country,
is it necessary that big telco business should be an 'equal' part
of that decision, and perhaps have some kind of veto over that
decision. Same for privacy regulation, or, to go further,
universal access policies, consumer protection laws and so on..<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:55 PM,
John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:24084D47-5783-4122-B455-F06BD3162195@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>
<div>On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: medium; 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-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none; ">The
two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day
sessions, covering just about all of the most critical
Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: medium; 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-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; ">agenda</a><span style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: medium; 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-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none; "><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(particularly for
Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass
government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for
globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles,
and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group
on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>I note on the agenda is the item "What is
multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with </div>
<div>respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that
everyone is using the</div>
<div>term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the
term with some </div>
<div>clarity might be very helpful in the coming days
(particularly if it were to be defined</div>
<div>from the civil society perspective)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or
common purpose?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all
interested parties?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Documents and materials made freely available online to all
parties?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which
provide consideration of all inputs/views?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Respect for all participants involved?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the
term "multi-stakeholder"</div>
<div>(in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not
aware of it, although the term</div>
<div>does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a
more solid set of principles</div>
<div>regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with
your present plans or goals for</div>
<div>the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via
multi-stakeholder </div>
<div> processes (unless one credits various
portions of my consciousness </div>
<div> with independent stakeholder status... ;-)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div id="ftn1">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<!--EndFragment--></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>