<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 17 March 2014 07:02 PM,
Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="border-collapse:collapse">
<div>
<span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="border-collapse:collapse">
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">
<br>
</div>
</span></span></span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span></span></span></span></div>
</div>
SNIP
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For me 'multistakeholderism" is just a fashionable way
to call a form of inclusive policymaking process. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Call it participatory democracy... These are books and books on it,
and decades of practice all of the world.... Eschew fashions when
they could suggest dangerous slippages on the very ideal which one
want to represent fashionably. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I see stakeholders as part of the people. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Part of people? Meaning? Just say people, wont that do... (other
than that business is not people, and to get over this problem alone
the word stakeholders is preferred to people) <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I don't think people need or should need some
validation from political parties before they can directly
participate in policymaking.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No not at all, They are the ultimate validators. How can they need
validation? But what has people's sovereignty to do, for instance,
with the fact that WCIT was being called not open on the ground that
Google could not vote at par with (however inadequately democratic)
governments like India, Brazil or Kenya or Netherlands. (Yes,
precisely this was said repeatedly.)... I am ready to be
explained... <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> This may even happen with traditional policymaking
issues (the ones that can be easily confined to a national
polity) if the elected officials are enlightened enough to
constantly consult with the people and the affected groups
in their decision making processes. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Here you say ' consult' , in the next line 'voice for policy
making', later again you speak of voice in policy making....<br>
<br>
I repeat, I said three things, and emphasised each, 'formal role,
'public policies' and 'actual decision making'..... And I am ready
to discuss the meaning of each of them. I never spoke of
consultation, voice in policy making and so on.... I firmly believe
that everyone has to have voice in policy making, and need to be
consulted....<br>
<br>
I referred this blog earlier to Stephanie that I did on IGF kind of
institution as version 3 of democracy<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy">http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy</a>
<br>
<br>
What more can I say about cardinal significance of consulting and
giving voice to everyone in a democracy... Therefore, I would like
that my view may not be mis represented again and again..<br>
<br>
My organisation perhaps does more work on participatory democracy
and the ground level that most organisations here.... We have been
involved with some very important work pre legislative <br>
processes being carried on in India.... Just to say, please do not
mistake participatory democracy with IG style MSism which seeks
'full parity of all stakeholders'. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>But sticking to political parties or formal processes
as the sole source of legitimate voice for policymaking
becomes even more problematic on issues where we depend so
much on each other across the world. So for me, while the
concept and its implementation may not be mature, stable
and robust enough to stand all relevant tests,
"multistakeholderism" is just an attempt to get people (at
least those who are aware among those affected by the
policies) to participate in the policymaking in some
orderly fashion (i.e. the organizing in stakeholders.) <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, this orderly fashion is key... Democracies had always many such
orderly fashions, trade unions, feminist groups, all kind of civil
society formulations of so many different kinds, various interest
groups.... What did MSism add ... well it gave all these one third
of non gov space, and apportioned the rest equally between big
business and larger pro business community of technical people
invested in specific technical organisations.. How did democracy
gain here. <br>
<br>
As for MSism meaning having formal platforms for consultation, even
agenda setting, outside the influence of policy makers, pl see my
blog above... that is the great step forward that IGF should have
been, but alas... Anyway, it could still be,<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now, I'm not naive. I know this is far from being
perfect and the process can be captured and become an
instrument for special interests with no much regard for
public interest. That's where our focus should be, trying
to make sure special interests do not use the mantle of
stakeholders to drown out the voice and interests of the
people. Granted, that's a tall order. But saying that
political parties, elections, or other formal processes
are the only way for legitimate representation, the only
way to have a voice in the policymaking process is where
we will have hard time finding an agreement. Maybe we
shouldn't have called that "multistakeholder", maybe the
boundaries of stakeholders are ill-conceived and they
should be something else, and clearly the checks and
balances for "multistakeholderism" leave much to be
desired as of now and we still have a lot of work to do,
but governments and political parties cannot be the only
answer, can they?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
A lot of people have been looking at other answers... But the best
of those efforts do not go through the alleys of big business, which
is considered a problem rather that a close ally in the quest for
democraticing our societies. <br>
<br>
IN the end, Mawaki, I asked a precise question about a specific kind
of political function and whether you admitted 'equal roles'
regarding it (including of course of business) , and so why do you
not answer that specific question rather we discuss in general the
ills of current democratic forms. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8dN6gKqoAuP_Y2wbbH5=eaPcxwg_oqcGGL6gU9Xn-q7A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
While awaiting your formulation of the 'common
understanding', </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>See my comments/responses above, and the current
version of the statement.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">I think that those
pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want
a business owner, or his rep, to be having a similar
role as someone coming from a formal political process -
called governments - in making actual decision making.
THis is death of democracy.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope not.</div>
<div>Now please let's focus on the statement and finalize it
(the broader discussion on MSism will certainly go on, but
I personally wish to rest my case with this message.)</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mawaki </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class=""><font
color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font></span><br>
PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited
technical and associated policy work in the manner that
it does at present.
<div class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Do you mean that policymaking is the
exclusive role of the government or
intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you
think this may have been so in some period
in the history of human societies but that
may evolve? And if so, would you accept the
idea that such evolution may not necessarily
be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and
laborious and experimental at the beginning,
and that it may be experimented in just one
or a few sectors before extending to other
domains of governance? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I may agree that at this point in
history, governments ratify public policies,
they have the final say, the ultimate
authority to really enforce them to the
extent that those policies are really
public. But why public policies cannot be
developed by all stakeholders (if that's
your position)? And developing policies
isn't that part of policymaking?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you do mean to suggest that
policymaking is the exclusive role of the
government or intergovernmental bodies in
this area of Ig, I'm afraid to say that from
my understanding of past discussions on this
list, that is unlikely to represent a
consensus view. Then shall we go back there
again?</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font
face="Verdana">This particular language
should therefore be struck out.<br>
<br>
Also, our communication , immediately
after welcoming the decision and
complimenting US gov for it, </font><font
face="Verdana">should</font><font
face="Verdana"> upfront say that we are
eager to know more details - especially
about (1) whether it means that ICANN
would no longer be under any contractual
obligations with the US gov, and be in
independent control of the root zone
server, and (2) what happens to the
issue of jurisdiction of incorporation
of ICANN and it being subject to US laws
and such and (3) whether any conditions
would be imposed in 'freeing ICANN' and
if so, of what nature.... </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Well, it is my understanding that USG has
not by this decision opened negotiations
with IGC and other Internet stakeholders.
They were in a position and just announced
they are willing to relinquish. As could be
expected they want to have a say in or an
eye on what will follow (no transition to
intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours
principles as guidelines.) For the rest they
say ICANN has to develop a transition
proposal which should include the details of
what will follow. So I think apart from the
4 principles and the one litmus test they
spelled out in the announcement, all your
questions above can only be answered in the
transition proposal to be developed with our
participation and that of all other
stakeholders. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mawaki</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <font
face="Verdana"> And that we look forward
to complete and real globalisation of
ICANN, in a manner that takes care of
these issues..<br>
<br>
Also, a minor point, about one but last
para, governance institutions do not
have customers, only constituencies and
the such... <br>
<br>
Thanks, parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM,
Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px">
<div><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="border-collapse:collapse">
<div>
<div><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="border-collapse:collapse">
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">
Dear All,</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">Please
find a draft
of the above
subject for
your
consideration
and possible
revisions.
This is just a
first crack
attempted
considering
the speed of
the events.
I'm cc'ing BB
as a peer
organization
with same
concerns.</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">We
would
appreciate
your inputs by
Monday noon,
UTC.</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">
---</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">IGC
Draft Press
Release</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">
<br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
March 14, U.S.
Commerce
Department’s
National
Telecommunications
and
Information
Administration
(NTIA)
announced its
intent to
relinquish the
oversight role
it has played
so far with
the Internet
Corporation
for Assigned
Names and
Numbers
(ICANN)
regarding key
Internet
domain name
functions. As
the
announcement
points out,
this marks the
final phase of
the transition
intended from
the inception
of ICANN
toward the
privatization
of the domain
name system
(DNS) and its
stewardship. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">The
Internet
Governance
Caucus (IGC)
welcomes this
decision and
appreciates
the
opportunity to
further evolve
toward an
equitable
multistakeholder
policymaking
model for the
governance of
the Internet.
In that
regard, IGC
pays a
particular
attention to
the
reiteration by
NTIA of the
necessity to
involve all
stakeholders
in the process
as well as in
the desired
outcome for
fully
completing the
above
transition.
[If deemed
relevant by
members and
subject to
what the
following
actually
entails: “Meet
the needs and
expectation of
the global
customers and
partners of
the IANA
services”] We
also support
the four
principles put
forward by
NTIA to guide
ICANN and the
global
Internet
community in
the
formulation of
a proposal to
finalize this
transition.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">While
acknowledging
the primary
role of
Internet
organizations
and technical
standard-setting
bodies, IGC
wishes to call
attention to
the utmost
importance of
giving due
consideration
to the
concerns and
views of
non-technical
and
non-commercial
stakeholders
in Internet
policies.
Indeed IGC
supports the
multistakeholder
policymaking
model to the
extent that it
does not
contradict the
ideals of
democracy,
including due
consideration
to the rights
of minorities
(in the
context of
Internet
policy). It
will be a
constant
challenge to
make sure the
term
‘multistakeholder’
is not reduced
to mean
‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’
but is rather
open to
embrace a
‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’
meaning. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Furthermore,
a great deal
of care should
be given to
designing the
appropriate
accountability
mechanisms
that fits a
truly global
governance
institution –
with a
constituency
and a customer
base that
actually is
global.
Related to
that and more
broadly,
adequate
responses must
be found to
the concern
that while
achieving
effective
accountability
such
institution
(to emerge
from this
transition)
should not be
subject to any
one national
jurisdiction
at the
exclusion of
others. It
must be
equally
available and
accessible to
all Internet
stakeholders.
</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Since
ICANN is one
of the
co-conveners
of the
upcoming
NETMundial,
the Global
Meeting on the
Future of
Internet
Governance<span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> (</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.netmundial.br" target="_blank">www.netmundial.br</a>)
to be held in
Brazil this
April, we
advise that it
includes in
its
consultation
process for
the transition
proposal the
propositions
made in
submissions,
proceedings
and outcomes
of that
meeting as
regards the
phasing out of
the current
role played by
NTIA in the
coordination
of the
Internet’s
domain name
system. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">The
Internet
Governance
Caucus</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">March
xx, 2014.</p>
</div>
</span></span></span></div>
</div>
</span></span></span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>