<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16441"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#333333>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial>(to repeat an argument I made a while ago but which
wasn't commented upon at the time...</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial>Perhaps an element of theory might be useful here... We
talk rather blithely of a "multi-stakeholder forum"... and rather emphasize the
"multi" at the expense of the "stakeholder" element but if we shift the
emphasis, then the question is what exactly to we mean by
"stake"</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial>There are several definitions but the most relevant one
via <A
href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stake">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stake</A> is</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=sblk>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=sblk>
<DIV class=snum>3</DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><EM class=sn>a</EM> <STRONG>:</STRONG>
something that is <A class=formulaic
href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/staked">staked</A> for gain or
loss <SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=break></SPAN><EM class=sn>b</EM> <STRONG>:</STRONG> the prize in a
contest <SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=break></SPAN><EM class=sn>c</EM> <STRONG>:</STRONG> an interest or share
in an undertaking or enterprise <SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>or according to Wikipedia</FONT> <FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>"</FONT><A title="Equity (finance)"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28finance%29">Equity stake</A>, a
share or interest in a business or investment</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>"Stake" in this context would thus appear to be
a synonym for "interest" and so the question is what or whose "interests" are
being represented in the multi-stakeholder forum?</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>It is clear I think, what the private sector
interests are; and the government has it's own interests as the "owner" of a
number of assets on behalf of its citizens and as the primary arbiter
(regulator?) of various contractual (commercial and dare I, say social)
obligations. Equally, the techical community has an "interest" in (on behalf of
its clients--mostly private sector) to make sure that the techical underpinnings
are facilitated and not undermined. (I have some questions/reservations
about the particular (independent?) stake/interests of academia in this regard
but I'll leave discussion to another time..</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>And that leaves "civil society"... representing
the "stake" "interests" of everyone else in the smooth functioning etc.etc. of
the Internet.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>The cost of participation by the private sector
folks is infinitesimally small compared to the value of the actual and
potential "interests" that are being discussed, and similarly for
governments, and for the technical community who in this analysis (and for
financial purposes) should probably be seen as a sub-set of the private
sector.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Which again leaves CS as the odd person
out. They represent the broadest set of "interests" but have immediate
access to the most limited set of financial resources to support their
participation. Crowd financing would appear to be the appropriate path but
for a variety of practical (and I would argue theoretical) reasons that
isn't going to work--the issues are not sufficiently focussed or immediate,
identification with the "interest" involved is too diffused, there is an
overall lack of organizing intermediary structures in this area for CS and
so on.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>If this is beginning to sound a bit like various
transition points in the evolution of various historical representative
democracies then so be it...</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>One of the first and most significant
innovations in the creation of those democracies was the determination to
provide financial support on behalf of the public to those participating in
Parliamentary forums. Prior to that to participate in Parliament required that
you either have private wealth or a significant financial backer... the move to
direct payments to Parliamentarians was precisely to allow those without such
backing to participate and was a major breakthrough in the rise of popular
responsible democracy.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Without "public" support the IGF and whatever
significance it might have will be truncated and in the end will be discredited
as a forum simply for "stakeholdering" by "stake"holders with the "interests" of
the many being (financially) excluded in favour of the "interests" of the
few.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Since ICANN now is the major imposer and
collector of "tax" on the Internet through its control of the naming process
they should be obliged to provide the resources through which a truly
multi-stakeholder forum can be conducted.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Mike</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012> </SPAN>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>parminder<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 08, 2012 6:35 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Is this the
same in Internet Governance?<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Fouad,<BR><BR>Thanks for raising this very
important issue. From the quoted article<BR><BR></FONT><PRE wrap=""><A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists</A></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>"This is plutocracy, pure and simple. The battle for democracy is now a
straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping
politics to suit their interests. The first task
of all democrats must be to demand that any group, of any
complexion, seeking to effect political change should reveal its
funders."</P></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">It is our
view, among civil society groups that I work with, that no one should be
considered civil society who doesnt reveal all funding sources, in a
completely transparent (preferably pro-active) manner, and is not ready to
answer all questions in this regard. <BR><BR>What has been obvious to most for
decades and centuries of devleopment of democratic thinking, seems to be
completely lost on a lot of the so called IG civil society. There is this very
dangerous talk of 'multi stakeholder funding' against 'public funding' for
policy bodies (what to speak of just public interest civil society bodies).
Since the civil society obviously has no funds to spare, this is just a
poorly-disguised call for corporate funding for policy bodies. And this talk
has flowered on this very list, and we have kept quite, nay mostly
</FONT><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">been </FONT><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">supportive. <BR><BR>This is nothing other
than the most powerful - plutocrats, referred in the above quote - seeking to
control the reins of policy -making and -shaping bodies through control over
their finances. And I have seen with horror how easily civil society have
fallen prey to this game, and openly supported such moves. <BR><BR>Even in the
Working Group on Improvements to the IGF (WGIIGF) this game played out, as one
of the biggest contestations. Whether there should be any global public
funding at all for the IGF become a big sticking point. And the final
resolution was; no, IGF should entirely be supported by private funds, whether
of corporates, or by voluntary donations by countries who have obvious
partisan interests vis a vis global policy regimes. And what a victory for
civil society - that evil UN was able to be kept at bay. We can celebrate!
<BR><BR>So, who are we, of the IG world, to be surprised or feel wounded to
read such news items like this one - that special interests have been bank
rolling the so called civil society bodies. We have gone much further; we have
advocated and ensured that even policy bodies are exclusively financed by
private funds, so that what you cant do by your legitimate representation in a
policy developing system, you can do through control over its funds. A brave
new post-democratic world indeed. And we have been less than silent
accomplices in building it. <BR><BR>One should have heard the long and
strident arguments of our much valued partners of the mustistakeholder brigade
- you know who - against greater transparency in IGF funding. However, these
things look to IG civil society as minor issues relative to that big demon -
UN taking over the Internet. (In the end though, and I give the credit largely
to two government participants - one from the North and another from the South
- one of the very very few real accomplishments of the report of the WG on IGF
Improvements is that it calls for full disclosure - on both sides, incomes and
expenditure - regarding IGF finances. )<BR><BR>Significantly, since an
opposition to any UN funds for the IGF was sweet-coated by the 'UN taking over
the Internet' bogey, an alternative innovative way of direct public funding of
the IGF through routing of the fees or taxes collected by the ICANN + system
from the users was proposed, but it was equally cynically shot down. So you
see, the problem is not only with UN's 'tainted' public funds - as some want
to see it - it is against any funding which is automatic and which doesnt give
the rich and the powerful discretionary levers of control over the global IG
policy system.<BR><BR>Quite unhappily, there wasnt even any civil society
support for this proposal. <BR><BR>In the circumstances, going back to the
original article about corporate money and politics, I think IG civil society
has a lot to think about its own conduct and outlook in this
matter.<BR><BR>parminder <BR></FONT><BR>On Thursday 08 March 2012 06:12 PM,
Fouad Bajwa wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:CAHuaJtM6j0sKhU3vF5AVevw1Mqa0HUwbH=UAP7p0AKTZPf2Cgw@mail.gmail.com
type="cite"><PRE wrap="">We need to know who funds these thinktank lobbyists.
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>