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

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Sorry, John, but Dilma uses the word "multilateral" to express "among
nations", not just among governments, as her UN statement implies and as
she has made clear in several subsequent statements (e.g, her weekly
radio talk). She is far less black-and-white than many of us.

Our problem is not our president, is the national telecom regulator,
Anatel, a faithful subsidiary of the ITU (as usually most are).

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 10/08/2013 12:21 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> 
>> If they meant that, why not say it so?
> 
> Well, so far you've heard myself, Raul, and Jari indicate it could have 
> been phrased better (statements developed by multiple organizations 
> sometimes suffer in the editing.)
> 
>> Dilma was far more courageous... ;)
> 
> Really?  By calling for _multilateral_ framework for governance and use 
> of the Internet?  Isn't that fairly routine position for governments to take?
> "The history of the twentieth century shows that forsaking multilateralism 
> is a prelude to wars and the consequent human misery and devastation."
> (Dilma Rousseff - 24 Sept 2013)
> 
> I'm not certain that advocating for the centuries-old model of "governments 
> dealing with other governments" for the resolution of problems is exactly 
> a bold and courageous approach. (I'd really like to believe that she meant
> multistakeholder, but the seven uses of the word "multilateral" plus the 
> above quote do make that a little difficult...)
> 
> We desperately need an updated model for Internet collaboration which 
> provides for government participation, while at the same time protecting 
> the voices of civil society and the private/technical/business sector.  This 
> is not easy - we know that private sector alone doesn't necessarily lead to 
> full consideration of public policy issues; we know that government and 
> private sector can actually be worse in that aspect.  Governments talking 
> to governments (multi-lateral) also is problematic, although we have begun 
> to see tangible progress with multi-stakeholder involvement in some of these 
> institutions following the Internet community lead.  The question before us
> is whether we can maintain the openness and participatory governance
> aspects of present Internet coordination (although to date private sector-led)
> as governments become more involved, all while formalizing structures for 
> civil society participation.   We have some advantages, as the Internet itself
> provides collaboration tools that previously did not exist (remote participation,
> collaborating editing/wikis, distributed polling, etc.) but we're still entering 
> uncharted territory and there is enormous pressure to get this right.
> 
> /John
> 
> Disclaimers:  My own views.  Yes, this is hard, that's why its called "work".
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- 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