<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>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><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"><div class="">
<br>
<div>On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM,
Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<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)">
Parminder,</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)">Thanks
for the opportunity to clarify.</div>
</span></span></span></div>
</div>
</span></span></span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<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>
<font face="Verdana">Mawaki<br>
<br>
Thanks for this effort. <br>
<br>
As often and variously discussed on this list, terms
like 'equitable multistakholder policy development
model' are very problematic unless we have some basic
definition of what is meant here, and it clearly
excludes decision making on public policy issues... </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am not sure why you think decision making on public
policy issues should be excluded from mutistakeholder
model or mechanisms, whatever their formal or theoretical
definition (but based on our common understanding or the
meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it
in this Ig context.) </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have tried to articulate that in the current version of the IGC statement/press release. In fact I have agonized over and tried my best to craft the wording so as to minimize your concerns by reducing the presence of bones of contention (have you taken a look at it yet? I probably wouldn't have asked you all the questions I did in my response to your earlier comment had I written this version of the statement before replying to your comment, as I just want us to get this statement done, not to get us discussing and working on the foundation of an emerging area of knowledge and practice.) </div>
<div><br></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">
Some
of us have been asking for such a formulation for really really long
now...<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors,
nether self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society,
can have a 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making'
- this role is only for those who derive their legitimacy from
people and their collectives through some formal political process
or formations, how much ever inadequate they may be at present
(their improvement being a different strand of political work). I
can further clarify my position if needed.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For me 'multistakeholderism" is just a fashionable way to call a form of inclusive policymaking process. I see stakeholders as part of the people. I don't think people need or should need some validation from political parties before they can directly participate in policymaking. 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. 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.) </div>
<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><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 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>