[governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?

[parminder]

On Tuesday 08 October 2013 04:49 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:43 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> snip
> You would not consider the "accelerating the globalization of ICANN 
> and IANA functions,
> towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all 
> governments, participate
> on an equal footing" to be truly substantial?

I may, if I am given some concrete indication what does that 
'environment' looks like.
>
>> Even if it was perhaps not possible for all the current signatories 
>> to sign off on any "real proposal" right away, can anyone here who 
>> comes close to being one among many representatives of the technical 
>> community propose an example of any such "truly substantial" change 
>> that technical community is now willing to consider, post NSA/ Snowden.
>
> How can there be a proposal of "what should be next" without first 
> having discussions
> of same?

The discussion started at least in 2004 with the WGIG, and now it is 
2013...... People have been discussing all along. What is time period/ 
limit of discussions?

>  Your faith in "a real proposal" from the Montevideo signatories 
> is appreciated,
> but discussions so that "all stakeholders, including all 
> governments, participate on an
> equal footing" is exactly the type of discussion going on globally in 
> places such as the
> IGF, and there is no clear or even emergent consensus yet that I can 
> discern...

The plain fact is that in a socio political space no change takes place 
if we wait for every every entity to agree completely. So we can wait 
eternally for the full consensus to emerge and the status quo can 
meanwhile be. Public interest actors can still agree - as they do often 
in terms of global treaties etc - because of some genuine give and take 
involved, and at other times a leap of collective faith in global public 
interest.... But when some private interest actors - who by definition 
look at narrow, relatively short term interest -  are also prominently 
lined up as essential parties to the sought for consensus, that is a 
pretty impossible task. A good recipe however to keep the status quo going.

parminder



>
> /John
>
> Disclaimer:  My views alone.  No new Internet Governance structures 
> are created via
>                   this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131008/8bb0007e/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