[governance] Bottom line on MSH (for CSTD meeting tomorrow)

[George Sadowsky]

All,

I agree with Bertrand's analysis and his remedy below.

Governments may say that they are in favor of a multistakeholder 
model, but when faced with the inevitable loss of power and control 
that such a model implies, They become uncomfortable and resist the 
change that such a shift implies.

That both the IGF and ICANN have demonstrated some success using the 
model is both reassuring and threatening: reassuring because it shows 
that the model, with responsible participants can improve discussion 
in certain significant areas, and threatening because such success 
might strengthen a call for its extension into areas where government 
interests are more strategic to them.

If this were the position of one or a few governments, one could 
write it off, saying that there will always be governments that seek 
to maintain total control over their sphere of responsibility. 
However, when it is the United Nations that is reverting to total 
government control over the future of the IGF, then it becomes a 
matter of very serious concern.  The UN is the implementer of the 
Tunis accord, not its redrafter.  What the accord says is what it 
says, no more and no less, and multistakeholderism for Internet 
Governance is clearly the model that has been chosen.  Any retreat 
from that position is, as Bernard properly puts it, a betrayal at the 
highest level.

George Sadowsky

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:40 PM +0100 12/16/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>One simple and important argument should be constantly kept in mind 
>in debating MSH (beyond arguing in favor if its benefits) : 180 
>governments in Geneva and Tunis solemnly have affirmed that Internet 
>Governance should be multi-stakeholder. However you read the 
>documents adopted in WSIS, that's what they say. Pretending 
>otherwise is disingenuous.
>
>Reverting to a purely intergovernmental approach (as seems to be 
>currently the trend) is nothing else than a betrayal - in letter and 
>spirit - of the commitments made at the highest level.
>
>Debating the "respective roles and responsibilities" of the 
>different stakeholders cannot amount to saying that some are kept in 
>the room (behind closed doors) and the other ones are kicked out - 
>again.
>
>Bottom line, in light of WSIS principles, any purely 
>intergovernmental process should be considered illegitimate and its 
>outcomes void of consent by the "governed".
>
>Best
>
>Bertrand
>
>

<<trimmed>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t