<html>
<body>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><b>At 03:28 05/11/2013,
genekimmelman@gmail.com wrote:<br>
I am all for the most valuable use of our time. So what would that be?
Until we know who will devise the agenda or structure for the Brazil
summit, I find it hard to answer my own question. So I lean
towards engaging until I know it is a waste of
time.</b></blockquote><br>
I am sorry, but MSism at this stage is something that is still to be
built. We have to build it. Or we will be kept out.<br><br>
It results from a simple and fundamental idea that Govs have identified,
accepted, and as a result demanded at the WSIS: <br><br>
- in our changing world <br>
<b>- Govs need to concert with</b> <br>
- the people society, business sector, and multilateral fabric. <br>
- in order to properly accomplish their job.<br><br>
This cannot be achieved through their usual (one to one) democratic
process, nor through their post-WW II UN implemented democratic process.
This is to be carried through a new polycratic process where there cannot
be "kings, presidents, and voting" but only "rough
consensus and running" projects because decisions are not made among
elected representatives but rather motivated stakeholders.<br><br>
In the resulting quadrilog, parties have the relative weight that they
want to have, grab, and testify in front of the public opinion. What I
observe is that:<br><br>
1.<b> generally speaking: <br><br>
</b>- each of the parties lacks competence and/or impetus in some
thematic areas. Either they try to correct that lack, or they hope others
will help them.<br>
- the most dramatic lacks that I have identified are in: the
archi/technical area (except for business), in short (except for
business), in middle (except for Govs) and long-term agenda and in
people's witness-ship (dubbed Civil Society).<br>
- that said, that Civil Society is power grab incompetent because it
gathers people from probably 0,1% of the real civil societal groups.
Civil Society's power comes from its strikes, riots and revolution
capacity. Is anyone in the IG fearing a CS strike?<br><br>
<br>
2. <b>strategically:<br><br>
</b>- multilateralism (i.e. Govs and their international organizations)
has sustained the MSism concept with the IGF as an enhanced cooperation
agora: (1) The ICANN model conflict with the IGF model, (2) time and
T&L costs prevent most of the anticipated innovation individual
leaders to attend and favorably help the political evolution from
statUS-quo, of which the necessary trust has been shaken.<br><br>
- business is now proposing a pragmatic business/developing country fair
based on a simple idea: the internet/web has generated a huge economic
bounty on some community markets – we need to agree on the best way to
extend the opportunity to new national and cultural communities. This is
globalizing the statUS-quo and a global customer lock-in.<br><br>
- under the pressure of a lack of time and money, the innovation
entrepreneurs <b>have not worked out a proposition yet</b> that satisfies
their <b>needs</b>. <br><br>
Our debate should, therefore, be general and doctrinal (who are we, what
do we want) and operational (project by project, what is the objective,
the needs from others, the tactics). <br><br>
<br>
On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The clock is ticking, the agenda
will be set basically in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of
the year, say December 15. Whether by the coalition of the willing,
or others.<br>
<br>
Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other governments
and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have just 7
weeks to come up with something sensible.</blockquote><br>
One of these projects <b><u>for us</u></b> is<b><u> to co-decide of the
Rio agenda</u></b>. Not to propose solutions, but to say with authority
what we want on the roster if they want to claim it is a MS summit on
globalization.<br><br>
If this to be an MS global summit, if we are the people of the world, as
a MS group we are <b><u>co-hosting the summit</u></b>. There are things
we <b><u>want</u></b> to see discussed prior others try to sell us their
stuff, things we want to discuss for ethitechnical reasons and in
the best interest of our fellow the people, in a supposedly people
centric society. That is, <b><u>IF</u></b> we carry any
legitimacy.<br><br>
Let get real and wake-up!<br>
Everything else, IMHO, is wasted time and efforts.<br><br>
jfc<br>
</body>
</html>