[governance] Netmundial - some questions

[Lorena Jaume-Palasi]

+1
Am 21.04.2014 17:09 schrieb "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>:

> 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/20140421/5fc9655c/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