<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Dear Pranesh and Jyoti,<br>
<br>
Thanks for this excellent paper - also extremely well researched
and presented.. </font><br>
<font face="Verdana">I fully agree with it.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Verdana">(Please note that in the sentence "The
consolidated proposal as it stands is reflective of a truly global
multi-stakeholder Internet community", evidently, a 'NOT' is
missing.)<br>
<br>
The problem is that even with such serious and widespread
dissatisfaction with the final proposals on the table, it is being
pushed and will be legitimised as having the consensus of the
community. And if you ask what is meant by 'community' you get
very slippery responses. 'Community' can be those who actually
traditionally engage with the ICANN processes, and at other times
it can be the global public, in which sense I understand the NTIA
framed its criterion of transition of oversight to 'the global
multistakeholder community'. It is between these two very
different meanings of 'community' that the entire exercise hides
its lack of legitimacy, and is able to produce 'outcomes' that
merely cement the status quo, as you argue so well. This I think
is particularly disingenuous and must be called out. <br>
<br>
It is, unfortunately, a good case study of how 'openness' can be
twisted (openness in the meaning of 'flexibility' instead of what
it should be, 'equitable participation').<br>
<br>
Also, points to some theoretical problems with multistakehoderism.
A stakeholder gets defined by the degree of engagement (this is
how the ICANN oversight process gets away with its definition of
'community') while 'public' is defined by default political
ownership, whether or not one is able to engage, and independent
of the degree of actual engagement. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 09 September 2015 07:58
AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55EF9962.7010600@cis-india.org" type="cite">Dear
all,
<br>
This is what we submitted from the Centre for Internet and
Society. We invoked IGC statements from 2005, during the WSIS
process, in our submission.
<br>
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Pranesh
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>