[governance] Netmundial - some questions

[Jean-Christophe Nothias]

+4


Le 21 avr. 2014 à 17:07, Deirdre Williams a écrit :

> In the two days left to us before the meeting begins I think we might generate not a statement but rather a list of questions which the meeting needs to address and if possible answer.
> 
> 
> I asked, on the Netmundial document, for definitions, because it seems clearer and clearer to me that we are all using the term “multistakeholder” but we do NOT all mean the same thing by it.
> 
> 
> I should also like a clear statement on the “ownership” of the Netmundial meeting: initially it was a meeting called by Brazil, then it became a meeting called by Brazil and ICANN, recently it acquired twelve governments as co-hosts … so whose meeting is it? That matters a lot.
> 
> 
> Then considering Garth's comments on Saturday in the Netmundial – Remote Participation thread
> 
> “ I just completed a fast scan of the meaning of stakeholder implicit in the NETmundial document and posted it as a “whole page” comment to that introduction page.  I found that stakeholders are not anyone who self-identifies as such. They are qualified into collective categories of organizations that are then “represented.”  It would be consistent with that implicit assumption to aggregate individuals into “hubs” (or as ICANN does, into internal “communities”).  But it’s not good “Internet” if the choice to connect doesn’t rest at the level of the individual.”
> 
> and Karl's discussion a week or so ago on the issue of “we and me” I would like to know what is being proposed in terms of establishing and protecting the balance between the rights of the group and the rights of the individual. As “civil society” (another term which needs a definition) our interests should tip in favour of “we” - after all we call ourselves “society” - but “civil society”, at least as I understand it, is a coming together of individuals with highly diverse needs and affiliations – for the society to work the members must be satisfied, as they surrender some of their freedoms to the needs of the group, that their individual necessities have also been considered.
> 
> 
> And yes – there needs to be clarification about process. Not only do we need to ask for clarification but also it would be excellent if we had some proposals ready to make in terms of this – probably too big a task for two days?
> 
> 
> Do other people share the 4 concerns listed above – there is already discussion about the last one? Any other ideas?
> 
> Deirdre
> 
> 
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140421/4bea2c3c/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