[governance] Reply to Milton's blog post

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Wed Dec 19 22:08:27 EST 2012 

Hi,

In this situation, i think there was the happy coincidence that, in my view, there was no dissonance between the perspectives.

avri




On 19 Dec 2012, at 19:22, michael gurstein wrote:

> Thanks Avri,
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to understand from your response is where you saw
> your role as a representative of "CS perspectives" ending and your role as
> "representing US national interests" (Amb Kramer) as beginning or perhaps
> you don't/didn't see any difference or tension between the two positions?
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:29 PM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Governance mailing list