<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 24/10/2014 5:38 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:544AF10A.5090209@eff.org" type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJoS0DXBU1Qg6OGgxRynD+x3f3D54jWeWdihQcGL1xRoU37Ucw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I am asking informational questions in an earnest
attempt to get a handle on who it is that has authorized or is
pushing for what appears to be a clear rejection of values and
principles that the great majority of people in the world
would be very unlikely to give up (at least not easily), and
what political system is being recommended to replace it. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Further, it's not as if these "great majority of people" have a
choice. The Internet (and the world) is <i>already</i> being
governed by diverse institutions many of which have no connection
with their elected representatives. So the choice is not between
sticking with a well-established system or representative democracy
or switching to an alternative called multi-stakeholderism, as you
seem to be characterising it. On the contrary, it's a choice
between continuing to submit to diverse mechanisms of ordering many
of which are not state-based or democratic, or constructing new
forms of representation that allow people, independently of their
citizenship, to participate in global governance in ways that would
otherwise be reserved to more powerful actors. Meanwhile the nation
state will continue to play its role, but in global Internet
governance it is not not an exclusive role.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::</pre>
</body>
</html>