[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Oct 24 00:16:15 EDT 2013
On Thursday 24 October 2013 06:18 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a
> framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that
> one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to
> Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with
> yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and
> said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes
> beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have
> different ideas of the desirable end states.
It wpuld be ok if we knew what is meant by MS processes, and
specifically, is there any plan here to do global public policy
development in substantive areas like norms/ guidelines/ legal
frameworks for privacy, net neutrality, taxation issues around cross
border e-com, competition issues, and the so many other areas of public
policy areas.... Or is it just about technical management of the
Internet, whether or not that includes oversight issue or not.
The recent ICANN initiative, which I strongly feel is tactically backed
by the US gov (if it did not originate there), strongly suggests
extending ICANN model to other substantive policy areas... That is the
main thrust... And people need to know about such basic issues before
they can join or not. I specially asked Chris about it during the
meeting, and his response clearly implied that it was about these other
substantive public policy issues. That would be a big shift from what
many people see as the legitimate role of ICANN like MS models in global
IG governance.. MS ism of the kind OECD practices in its Internet policy
making is of course a different issue, and that is welcome and should be
adopted more widely.
To make the issue clearer by providing a contrast: if one gets up today
and declares, all those who support democratic processes in global IG,
come join us, would you for instance join that group, without asking
further questions.
parminder
> Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice
> your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the
> people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own
> relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that
> those who do shouldn't be able to.
>
> Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved,
> why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded?
>
> Bill
>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> im Auftrag von
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57
>> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting
>> tomorrow lunchtime
>>
>> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community
>> meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to
>> me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are
>> forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots"
>> campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting
>> the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against
>> "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed
>> - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and
>> Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to
>> create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting
>> is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of
>> that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The
>> overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT
>> campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for
>> the technical community, and at a time like this, it is
>> totally misplaced and ill-advised.
>>
>> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our
>> response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to
>> lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be
>> having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room
>> Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and
>> Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting.
>>
>> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little
>> early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call,
>> but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether
>> you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements
>> tomorrow, rather than on Friday:
>>
>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around
>> the world, committed to the development of an open Internet
>> and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and
>> expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in
>> 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting,
>> participation and decision making from its inception.
>>
>> This requires:
>> The event should discuss what Internet governance
>> architecture is required to support an inclusive,
>> people-centric, development-oriented information society.
>> We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a
>> structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of
>> all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and
>> promotes human rights.
>> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in
>> planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced.
>> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in
>> the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed
>> at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC
>> process as appropriate.
>> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or
>> presentations of good intentions and seek to produce
>> actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for
>> organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will
>> commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all
>> stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate
>> on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final
>> outputs.
>> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend
>> meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been
>> used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to
>> a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the
>> goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory
>> debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society
>> participation.
>>
>
>
> **********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (w),
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (h),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131024/b69db41c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list