[governance] Reply to Milton's blog post

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Not sure what you are asking.  But that won't stop me from trying to answer.

Though, I long ago gave up thinking about the Ism associated with the participatory democratic form of governance we currently are working to further and calling the multistakeholder model.

Of course no part of WTSA/WCT/[anything to do with ITU] was[is] adequately multistakeholder.  It barely had a slight bit of multistakeholder about it.

Yes, on the US delegation we were participating as advisors.  And as expert advisors I beleive we did our best to make sure that as much of the CS perspectives as possible got fed into discussions.  I know that in the internal discussions we got to speak freely and openly and I believe were heard.  Decisions were made by others at the end of the discussions.

On other delegations the CS people participated as delegates.  They would have to tell us about the degree to which their delegation was multistakeholder in its processes.  In some I know they participated freely, in others I know they remained closeted.

I think a step forward in the multistakeholder process was the creation of the CS meta-delgation composed of the CS people who happened to be there either as members of delegations of as the public to whom the meetings were partially opened.  This group also included many people who were participating remotely.  This group put out statements, met with Toure - and argued for making the ITU process more multistakeholder, and worked on sharing messages among delegations.  CS was at the meeting.  Barely, and without proper consideration of its role as stakeholders.  But yet it was heard.  A step in the right direction.

Don't know if this answers your question, but it is the best I can do.

avri


On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:01, michael gurstein wrote:

> Avri and all,
>  
> I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in these multi-stakeholder processes.
>  
> M
>  
> Amb Kramer: Now your second question – you said “lobbying.” It’s a good question, but I’ll rephrase it. It’s not lobbying per se. We had – have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They – as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they’re representing national interests.
>  
> So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they – the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis.
>  
> A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that’s the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you’re able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that’s been a huge benefit of our delegation.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post
>  
>  
> On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote:
>  
> > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do
> > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that
> > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I  had nothing
> > to answer to them.
>  
>  
> i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their funding elsewhere.
>  
> i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am uninformed.  anyone else know of any?
>  
> they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere.
>  
> and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option.
>  
> avri
>  
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


-------------- 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