<html>
<body>
Dear Deirdre,<br><br>
your concern is legitimate. The response is very simple. IG is a
political issue. Politics as per Aristotle is the art of commanding free
men. We are in the middle of a "singularity",. Raymond Kurzwell
(Google) believes that this is when machines will start replacing people.
It is more probably a big change in the human society: politics is now
the arts of commanding free digitaly networked men. <br><br>
This creates new additional business and power opportunities we are not
yet used to. They challenge market shares and established sovereignties,
but open new frontiers. This is why there are two strategies to respond
this singularity: we are in the process of switching from the first to
the second one.<br><br>
1. "status-quo": one tries to keep things unchanged to protect
the old equilibrium in constraining innovation. This is the strategy of
the established dominants: M$, Telcos, etc. supported by the USG
executive branch (NTIA), i.e. international relations.<br><br>
2. "internationalization": one tries to
"internationalize" the new territories' legal, contractual,
conventional, etc. environment. This is another term for
"e-colonization". This is the strategy of the emerging edge
providers new dominants. Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc. <br><br>
The transition from status-quo to internationalization has been supported
since 1977 by the USG (FCC, NTIA). It has entered in a new phase of its
strategic evolution toward the legal branch, the US globality switch from
international to domestic affairs.<br><br>
The problem is that the world is not yet fully ruled by the Congress
along a democratic process. An "international domestic
virtuality" democratic substitute had to be found. This is
"multistkeholderism". It puts e-colonized-States and
Edge-Providers on a legal footing basis. This is the TPP/TAFTA core idea:
an US lawyer panel can arbitrate between US TNC (transnational
corporation) and States of the "international domestic
virtuality" when their democratic legislations are hurting their
interests. The people of the world must pay their democacy to the US
TNCs.<br><br>
You bet that at this political level, no one is interested in knowing
what people (those unable to engage into a class-action) may think, and
dominants are only interested in keeping the others quite. This is the
purpose of lists such /1net: to make their participants believe they are
important, pay them to attend useless meeting round the world, etc. so
they cooperate, in order to prevent at leas two problems from
happening.<br><br>
These two problems are that the Emperor is not only naked but also not an
emperor.<br><br>
1. he is not an emperor. The Emperor wants to "be unilateraly
global". This is a "bug". No one can be the center of the
entire world. Only the Emperor of China believed he was.<br><br>
2. he is naked because, if his law may induce code, code becoms law. Code
is the clothes. The Emperor wants to make believe he controls the code
(e.g. the root). But the network code is designed by engineers for those
who need it. <br><br>
There are two resulting tactics to control code: <br><br>
1. to make States believe they do not need alternative code (ICANN/GAC)
<br>
2. to delay prevent the Multitude (the not yet marketingly brain washed
people) from demanding and using such alternative code. This is done by
story telling (e.g. need of a unique root - countered by ICANN's own ICP3
document), "internet balkanization" to describe resistance to
e-colonization, etc. Now it is filtering alternative credible
propositions (such as VGN analysis).<br><br>
In this context, you bet that nobody cares about who is a
"stakeholder". There are market share holders (edge providers),
state holders (NTIA, EU, China, Russia), internet structural status
holders (RIRs), technical rights holders (IETF Trust) and net holders
(ISP, Telcos). Period, never mind about users: they only are those who
pay and buy: making them to believe they are stakeholder will only make
them to chant the beauties of MSism and help e-colonizing.<br><br>
However, there is a still small irritating irruptive group:
the independent users (IUsers) who know how an intelligent use (IUse) of
the interneted (protocols) catenet (global network system) can keep them
independent, i.e. free from the Emperor, because they know that he is
stark naked. The priority is to prevent them to get an audience.
Then all the old political tricks are good enough. (e.g.
"alliance.fsp4@gmail", the MS collective mail address of the
young initiative for a "fail-secure plan for the net" is denied
subscription to the /1net and NTIAtransition lists.<br><br>
After all, these people oppose ICANN. What is mean is that ICANN only
disregards the registrations (automatically?) instead of plainly
responsibly rejecting it. The Emperor fakes that he does not hear those
who tell he is naked.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
At 22:00 03/05/2014, Deirdre Williams wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">I feel a little as if
I were in Hans Andersen's
“</font>
<a href="http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#1155CC">The Emperor's New
Clothes</a></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">”
story. So let me take on the role of the little child near the end of the
story who said </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">"But he
hasn't got anything on."<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">Internet governance,
as far as I am concerned, is an issue of global concern. It is too
far-reaching in its effects to be limited to any one sector of the global
community. I understand multistakeholder to offer greater inclusion, or,
since I find myself using the comparative “greater” without being
clear about “greater than what?”, then I understand multistakeholder
to be a precaution against limitation to a single sector.
Multistakeholder means that many different voices, with many different
opinions, will be heard.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">However everyone
seems to have a different answer to “what is a stakeholder?” and to
the issue of whether stakeholders are:<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">a) groups<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">b) individuals
or<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">c) a combination of
both<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">Does anyone here have
an answer, and if c), how is an equitable balance of power to be
achieved?<br>
</font><br><br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">Also three terms seem
to be used interchangeably in discussion:<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">a)
multistakeholderism<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">b) multistakeholder
model</font>
<ol>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">c) multistakeholder
process</font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">I would like to know
about the process as it refers to decision making. I followed the
Netmundial meeting as a remote participant. The final decision making
process had no remote access, so I am unable to comment on it. </font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">However, earlier
today in a message to the governance list (et alia) in the thread
“Roles and Responsibilities” Wolfgang Kleinwachter, discussing
multistakeholderism and democracy, stated
“</font><font face="arial" color="#222222">
</font><font face="arial" size=4 color="#222222">And Net Mundial has
produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important
is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some
cirteria so that you can measure the level of
democracy/multistakeholderism.”</font>
<font face="arial" color="#222222">
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">But what are
these criteria?</font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">In the same message
Kleinwachter offers: </font>
<font face="arial" color="#222222">In a democracy it is the separation of
powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working
parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it
is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development,
shared decision making, decentralization etc.</font>
</ol><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">So what in fact is
the actual process of "shared decision making? How is it done and
how is that particular way of doing it “better”? And what about the
actual process of "</font><font face="arial" color="#222222">bottom
up policy development"?
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">How is it more
than standing in line to speak at an open microphone?<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#222222">I should really like
to know, and I'm hoping to hear from several people so that I can learn
from the whole range of views in one place.<br>
</font><br>
Thank you <br><br>
Deirdre<br><br>
-- <br>
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 <br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>