<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 Sunday 27 July 2014 02:24 PM, Ian
Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba"
type="cite">definitely I think there is room for some sort of
consensual statement here, and this goes a long way towards
getting one.
<br>
<br>
I just re read the relevant sections of NetMundial statement -
which has some very good inclusions as regards MS and (on my first
quick reading) does not conflict with the sort of separation of
consultation and policy development (multistakeholder) and final
decision making (may be a different process) which both Avri and
Parminder are alluding to.
<br>
<br>
If we are developing a statement I just wonder about the wisdom of
concentrating on "on an equal footing" - to me its a bit like
"enhanced cooperation" and not necessarily meaningful to our
future.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In a good debate, whether the two sides agree on substantive issues
or not, it is always useful, and mostly possible, to agree on what
are the key issues that are the matter of debate. "Equal footing' is
such key issue. If we skirt it, we remain where we are, wrapped in
obfuscations, often blaming others for positions that they may not
hold and so on. It is best to know what positions we hold, vis a vis
key matters of debate.<br>
<br>
BTW, the following is an excerpt from the NetMundial document.
(emphasis added.)<br>
<br>
(begins)<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">….. list of points that need better
understanding and further discussion in appropriate fora:
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">1. Different roles and
responsibilities
of stakeholders in Internet governance,<i><b>including the meaning
and
application of equal footing.
</b></i></p>
<br>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>(ends)<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba"
type="cite">
<br>
Ian Peter
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- From: parminder
<br>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 1:54 PM
<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the
complex IANA transition process
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Saturday 26 July 2014 08:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Snip
<br>
Whenever I need a definition, I use:
<br>
<br>
<br>
The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that
allow
<br>
for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
<br>
participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and
the
<br>
recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and
implementation
<br>
may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision
makers are
<br>
always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their
decisions and
<br>
the implementations.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
The definition above says that the 'equal footing' part is only
for
<br>
participation in deliberation of issues and giving (I understand,
<br>
non-binding) recommendations of solutions. And that it does not
apply to
<br>
actual decision making and implementation. However, this is not
how the
<br>
term 'equal footing' is employed in the current MS discourse and
the
<br>
MSist text that is sought to pushed into global documents,
including at
<br>
NetMundial, CSTD WGs, and almost everywhere else. (I can provide
any
<br>
number of proofs to support this assertion.) There is obviously a
world
<br>
of difference between 'equal footing' for deliberations and rec
giving,
<br>
on one hand, and public policy decision making and implementation,
on
<br>
the other.
<br>
<br>
But lets not crib over the past. If this is the way Avri looks at
MS
<br>
processes, and I see that Mawaki has noted the definition with
some
<br>
enthusiasm, can we attempt what could be a 'grand reconciliation'
:) ...
<br>
Between the so called MSist on one hand and those who profess
global
<br>
democratic governance (called MLists by detractors), which
division I
<br>
understand has almost universally been cited as the key factor
causing
<br>
rifts in the IG related civil society, and making its contribution
far
<br>
less effective than it could have been. A worthy cause to attempt,
<br>
anyone would say.
<br>
<br>
I propose that the IGC adopts the following text by consensus.
<br>
<br>
"With democratic multistakeholder processes we mean an equal
footing
<br>
only for means and forums of deliberations and possible
recommendation
<br>
(non binding) giving. The term 'equal footing' does not extent to
<br>
decision making and implementation."
<br>
<br>
Now, if people want to keep the issue of technical standards
related and
<br>
other decisions out of such a formulation (as I would bec it
admits of a
<br>
different dynamics) we can make clear that we are taking of public
<br>
policy decision making, something which in fact is clear and
given when
<br>
we begin to discuss democracy , which is the present context. but,
still
<br>
can make it explicit, if only to avoid getting into that customary
mess
<br>
of a policy processes related discussions being responded to with
a
<br>
technical decisions related comment(s). So, maybe
<br>
<br>
"With democratic multistakeholder processes for public policies
<br>
development we mean an equal footing only for means and forums of
<br>
deliberations and possible recommendation making (non binding) .
The
<br>
term 'equal footing' does not extent to decision making and
implementation."
<br>
<br>
The NEt Mundial document recommended that the ideas and concepts
related
<br>
to democratic MS processes be discussed further and clarified. By
<br>
attempting the above, we will only be taking forward the work of
NetMundial.
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the
definition
<br>
need to be defined as well. But it is my working definition.
<br>
<br>
avri
<br>
m17m.org
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a> <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>