<br>I am enjoying the discussions and exchange of views etc on the subject matter.This is my 2cents.<div><br></div><div>Firstly - take the word "stake" and replace it "interest". Just as property can have different competing interests, for example,</div>
<div><ul><li>legal interest (such as a title or a "charge" or hold eg. mortgage/charge/encumbrance);</li><li>equitable interest (no direct ownership - but interest is determined by the level of impact (good or bad) by those holding possession;</li>
<li>usufructory interest;</li><li>proprietary interest;</li></ul><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Because the Internet has so many diverse and complex "stakeholders" and all with varying degrees of "stake" or "interests" how does one when looking to see how you give a voice or vote or a combination of both to its complex governance processes. To this end there are two dichotomies, and potentially polar views.<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We had a previous thread in which we had some interesting discussions on perception. In that thread, there was a graphic image, where people were asked what they could see. Where some saw an old woman, others saw a young girl. Similarly, if we take the internet, because there are quite a number of lenses (resulting from training/culture/context/socialisation etc), for me I am embracing the diversity of perspectives on this single thread and trying to appreciate the tapestry.</div>
<div><br></div><div>From a real law perspective - I would agree with everything that Paul wrote in his initial email. Yes, true democracies are through votes and there are people who may not be able to speak (physically challenged) but may be able to vote with their hand etc but within sovereign territories, true democratic rule is through free and fair elections where people elect their people to govern them and perform all the functions of government which in a nutshell is to serve and protect the people who elected them. On the same token, you have governments who do not have these processes, recent case in point is the Syrian Government shooting their own civilians and there are other governments and examples. The reality is that all around the world, you have certain governments who have forcefully come into power. People within those countries live in fear and they have neither a voice nor a vote.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In a democratic country, one expects the three arms of governments are equal and separate and able to check and balance each other to achieve some semblance of the rule of law. There are many countries around the world that struggle in this area as one of the arms, usually the executive arm dominates the other two - Wolfgang pointed to one of those countries. Another country, Iran was creating its own cyber army to hunt down dissidents, this was in a previous thread, I think.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There is a country in the Pacific that has had 4 Coup D' Etats and a Putsche, I have witnessed the imbalance of internal check mechanisms and usually in countries that go through the same, you have things like the removal of the office of the Auditor General and publication of Reports, you see the Judiciary being taken over by one of the arms and on certain issues - you cannot expect a fair trial. There are laws made without consultation of the masses and it is not robustly debated in Parliament because Parliament has been dissolved. There are other countries who are strong and vibrant democracies of course like the United States, Australia etc. When inter-governmental bodies convene such as the United Nations for instance, they gather irrespective of whether they were voted in or not, they are there by virtue of one single fact, they hold office within Government. This is regardless of how they got into office but for as long as they hold office. Yes all governments have one vote [if we were to be pedantic - how did some of them get into government? - does the IGO care, I would say that it would not for one reason - every nation is sovereign and so technically every country gets to determine their own destinies, after all was'nt this what self determination all about? The IGO will only care on a few rare grounds and on exceptional circumstances to justify an "intervention", anything outside this is forgotten or swept under the carpet, left for some activist somewhere to highlight etc. </div>
<div><br></div><div>So the question is ultimately, "<i>Should the Public Sector be given unfettered power over global internet policy?</i>" </div><div><br></div><div>When the WGIG gathered to discuss the form of governance and explored the "multistakeholder" concept (I can't say I know what was discussed) but I am assuming that they would have had to see the internet universe or what some call the global internet ecosystem. They would have recognised and appreciated that infrastructure is often by far and large in liberalised markets owned by the Private Sector.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So some may ask, "<i>Should the Private Sector be given unfettered power over global internet policy</i>?"</div><div><br></div><div>The role of civil society is made up of ordinary citizens (in our case - netizens) who organise themselves outside of government and the public service to deal with specific issues and concerns that normal governmental processes cannot address by itself. They play a huge role in the protection of global public interest. There are instances where certain companies have been known to violate rights of privacy for some end users and in some jurisdictions, take the recent example of the German Regulator who gave notice to Facebook to remove the "tag feature" - this was effectively a "check". </div>
<div><br></div><div>So some may ask, "<i>Should Civil Society be given unfettered power over global internet policy</i>?"</div><div>Also when there are human rights violations over the internet, the strong voice of civil society advocating for those who cannot speak because they are scared of the repercussions from within their countries. Here the voice of civil society creates a sort of "check". </div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>To this end I would say that in a sense these three Sectors have the capability of acting as a "natural" check and balance mechanism for each other. The wisdom, and diplomacy that is so evident in the way "internet governance" within the 2005 WGIG Report to me imputes the significance of the very different roles that the public sector, private sector and civil society play and it does not take away from any their roles but in the world of internet governance, they are meant to function alongside each other. If in terms of policy development, any of these three sectors had too much power, and others weak, then the "theory of check and balance" becomes vulnerable to abuse. I gave the example of where I have seen this in the Pacific country.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course these raises other issues such as how should these checks and balance work within the Internet Universe.</div><div><br></div><div>Kind Regards,</div><div>Sala</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<div><div><br></div></div><div>____________________________________________________________</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div><br></div><div>Tweeter: @SalanietaT</div><div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div><div>Cell: <a href="tel:%2B679%20998%202851" value="+6799982851" target="_blank">+679 998 2851</a></div>
<div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br></span></font></div><br>
</div>