[governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion

[Baudouin SCHOMBE]

I understand that Michael is in a win-win option.
Which means that civil society should serve as an outlet and to outlet
of commercial
enterprises.
Being consumer representatives and consumer of ICT products, we are in
busness logic. Digital technology is the result of all the previous
revolutions known as the world. But in the cycle of the digital revolution, the
consumer has a prominent place and unavoidable.
The true reality is that we are all consumers of ICT products.

But the question arises: what is civil society represents an unnecessary
expense in all these discussions?

In my humble opinion, should we not consider the problem of funding as
a justification
for the approach of inclusiveness? Taking into account the principle of
multi-stakeholders?

Participation of civil society must be viewed in terms of investment
prospects in terms of multiple concerns raised by civil society actors.
It should be a positive economic reading regarding the presence of entities of
civil society.


SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

Téléphone mobile:+243998983491
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net





2012/2/14 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>

>
> Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and
> there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding
> may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give
> precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and
> what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something
> (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its
> success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this
> the principle that we want to accept?
>
> We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation
> as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision
> making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the
> legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple
> layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed
> "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on
> outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second
> class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision
> making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f
> interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the
> practice we want to accept?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120215/2bfcbc26/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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