[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

Fri Nov 29 15:52:04 EST 2013

Dear Norbert, Dear Milton,

If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity,  for the pleasure of the reflection:

Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. 

Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. 
Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.

Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. 
Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.

- The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value.
- The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis.
- The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system.

Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate.

Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks...

All the best,

__________________________

Jean-Christophe Nothias 
Editor in Chief
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
@jc_nothias

Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit :

> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000
> schrieb Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> 
>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family
>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word
>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in
>> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not
>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena
> 
> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their
> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has
> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global
> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of
> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is
> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national
> relations.
> 
> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very
> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased
> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns
> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address.
> 
> Maybe yet another term could be used???
> 
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131129/0cbeee3e/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