[governance] ITU Broadband Commission

[Avri Doria]

On 7 Apr 2012, at 16:22, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> My 2 cents is the general principles/objectives being pushed by the ITU's Broadband Commission are not bad, but the fact of the matter is it more a classic high-level talkathon opportunity than anything else. Submitting docs to them is likely not worth the time it would  as Michael suggests. And for CS, certainly not worth the bother of trying to shape/steer at this late date when the dye is cast. 
> 
> 

I am not sure I understand why submitting existing docs, by someone who knew what to submit, was not worth the bother.

On the topic of participating or not.  I think that is the wrong question.

If the topic is important and the venue relevant, CS should participate.

The fact of whether we are included at the table or not, would seem to dictate tactics as opposed to participation.  There are different ways by which CS makes it views heard, when it has a seat at the table or  when it is forced to stand outside the door making itself heard.  And if CS is being excluded from this table, and we thinking there is any chance they are going to do something harmful to the public good, then we should be screaming our heads off outside the door and should gear up a campaign to do so.

One of the disadvantages of the multistakeholder model (i bet some of you thought i never saw a disadvantage to the model) is that when we are not included we just sort of whinge and sputter.  We have lost some of the anger that made CS a force at WSIS and this is partly because we have changed over all of our methods to Multistakeholder reasonableness.  And personally I think one of the reasons we see a pull back in the support of the multistakeholder model by the other stakeholders is that we have become docile, or even invisible, when excluded.

The only time many of the others will allow CS at the table is when they think that excluding CS will be more annoying than having us at the table is.  To expect governments or business to it because it is the right thing, is sort of wishful thinking.  governments do what make retention of power easiest and business do what maximizes profit.  So CS has to be prepared to be  disruptive of easy power and profits if it wants to be included in the discussions.  And sometimes it just has to flex its disruptive muscles just to remind the powers that be that it is ready to do so.

my thoughts for an easter morning.

avri




-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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