[governance] caucus contribution -> overall theme

[Avri Doria]

On 13 Feb 2013, at 16:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>>>> =============================
>>>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be:
>>>> “Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in Internet
>>>> governance”."
>> 
>> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
>> 
>> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
> 
> How about giving both suggestions:
> 
> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation
> of all stakeholders in Internet governance” or “Human rights and their
> implications for Internet governance”

Hight

Well it would probably be "two possible overall themes"

But as I said, meaningful still seem meaningless to me.  Or rather it could mean any number of different things to different people.  Or even to the same person.

Do we mean full participation?
Do we mean participation according to our appropriate roles and responsibilities?
Do we mean equal participation?
Do we mean satisfying participation?
Do we mean effective participation?

What exactly do we want to talk about here.  
What is the scope of the conversation?  IETF, ITU, ICANN, ETSI, APNIC, ARIN ...

Or are we talking about within the IGF itself?  Are we exploring the problematic imbalance in the MAG where governments get half the seats?

That is why I argue for workshops that explore all of these organizations modalities, and more, and see what comes of that discussion.  I think that first we need to understand that these days everyone claims to be multistakeholder, so the IGF has an opportunity to weight in and ask, exactly what do you mean by that and can you show us how this works?  I do not see it as a general theme.

But in any case, I don't think the topic is specific enough, and the word meaningful is problematic.

I am sure that the ITU could argue that as a remote participant in the IEG meeting on WTPF I was able to participate meaningfully.  and from some perspective I might even be forced to agree with them especially in comparison to previous participation level.  But is that what we want to deal with?

avri

APNIC - Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers
ETSI - European Telecommunications Standards Institute
ICANN - Interent corporations for Assigned Names and Numbers
IEG - Informal Experts Group
IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force
IGF - Interent Governance Forum
ITU - International Telecommunications Union
WTPF - World Telecommunications Policy Forum

> 
> ?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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