<p>Dear Michael</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree with your statement on the prevanece of accountability and public interest. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>For the sake of completion to your suggestion and, about and beyond, to the current debate upon the relevance of MSH, please see the document hereafter :</p>
<p> </p>
<p>http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/11/opinion-global-governance-we-need-to-bring-civil-society-to-the-table/</p>
<p><br /> A very interesting and useful reading since its thematic, namely global governance (of which IG is (only) a subset), originates from far before the WSIS ... and (for that reason?) doesn't mention the MSH. Phew ...<br /><br /></p>
<p>One interesting path for CSOs involved in IG would be to join forces and establish/take profit of synergies with FIM - Forum for Democratic Global Governance that deals with participatory democracy at the highest (multilateral) level. In other words, enshrine Internet Governance in a wider thematic/framework, namely Global Governance (GG), or -at least- deal with IG in full consistence with GG. This would enrich our debate and balance multistakeholdership's role, as well as it would help us to give it an appropriate place in our approach and process.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Best regards </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Jean-Louis Fullsack</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left: #ff0000 2px solid;">> Message du 04/11/14 01:05<br />> De : "michael gurstein" <gurstein@gmail.com><br />> A : "'Sivasubramanian M'" <isolatedn@gmail.com><br />> Copie à : "'Jeremy Malcolm'" <jmalcolm@eff.org>, governance@lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits@lists.bestbits.net, forum@justnetcoalition.org<br />> Objet : RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations<br />> <br />><meta /><meta /><!--[if gte mso 9]><noxml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><noxml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">To whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to whomever has paid for their participation? Are their formal procedures for accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about the nature of the participation/representation of another group what measures are available to challenge that participation and under what terms? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to would the entire process be accountable?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">Of course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer each of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held accountable.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">M</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif';">From:</span></strong><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif';"> Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com] <br />> <strong>Sent:</strong> Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM<br />> <strong>To:</strong> michael gurstein<br />> <strong>Cc:</strong> Jeremy Malcolm; governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits@lists.bestbits.net; forum@justnetcoalition.org<br />> <strong>Subject:</strong> Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #333333;">It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders </span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #333333;"></span><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #333333;">are not representative enough.</span><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #333333;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #333333;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #333333;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #333333;">The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy" target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #333333;"></span><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #333333;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<!-- PART SEPARATOR --><br /><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 /> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<br /><br />For all other list information and functions, see:<br /> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<br />To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br /> http://www.igcaucus.org/<br /><br />Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br /><br /></blockquote>