[bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

[William Drake]

Hi Jeremy

> On Jan 17, 2013, at 3:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> What about the third, missing view - that the current governance of the Internet is NOT sufficiently multistakeholder and inclusive in terms of involvement of all stakeholder groups, but that rather than governments being left out, it is civil society!  We can point to so many examples of this, beginning at the ITU itself.
> 
> I think the report needs to be changed to correct this erroneous characteristion of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance.  However the ITU is only receiving submissions from members (there is an open platform for general comments, but they won't be received as direct inputs to the SG's report).  We will therefore need to put in our submission either through a friendly government (those who were members of delegations at WCIT will already have these connections), or through a sector member.  Consumers International has applied for sector membership, but our application does not come up for consideration until June.  We do have a CI member who is a sector member, but is there anyone else on this list who also is (and who is less status-quoist than ISOC)?  If not I will work with my member on some text.

The US State Dept. held a long call yesterday preparing for the WTPF Informal Group of Experts meeting 6-8 February.  Among the things we discussed was the draft report's game playing with regard to multistakeholderism, e.g. the conflation by definition of MS and the "WSIS model" of MS, the assertions that the ITU is thereby fully MS, etc., and there was agreement that these concerns should be raised in the IEG with an eye to the next round of edits.  As to CS being left out of the current governance of the Internet, if you could specify which institutions and issues you mean and maybe even suggest a sentence, this could be raised as well on next week's call.  

If anyone can be in Geneva then, I'd encourage applying to join the IEG.  There's been no CS participation, and while ITU approved me it looks like I can't change a flight to attend.  There's a number of points in the draft report where independently stated CS perspectives would be helpful.  This is even more true of the draft Opinions that will be negotiated at the WTPF itself (including the Saudi proposal putting ITU in charge of enhanced cooperation), although these apparently won't be dissected in the IEG in detail.

BTW I still think IGC and other CS networks should write a letter to ITU seeking the right to participate at the WTPF without having to do the staff vetted beauty contest...

Cheers

Bill