CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

Tue Jul 29 18:13:56 EDT 2014

Here’s what was agreed to at Netmundial. I personally have no problem with any of this, does anyone?

What I think we need to add to this comes from the discussion Parminder started, in response to Avri’s posting, as regards limits to multistakeholder application to final decision making in some instances. But if we are all happy with what is below, we have a very good start. We could then look at the areas where we see limits to applicability and the need for further clarification.

Ian Peter

FROM NETMUNDIAL

INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES
 Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, 
multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable 
participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, 
civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 
interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.

 Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of 
international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance 
arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all 
stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent 
possible.

 Transparent: Decisions made must be easy to understand, processes must 
be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures, and procedures must 
be developed and agreed upon through multistakeholder processes.

 Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as 
for review and redress should exist. Governments have primary, legal and 
political accountability for the protection of human rights

 Inclusive and equitable: Internet governance institutions and processes 
should be inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes, 
including decision making, should be bottom-up, enabling the full involvement 
of all stakeholders, in a way that does not disadvantage any category of 
stakeholder.

 Distributed: Internet Governance should be carried out through a distributed, 
decentralized and multistakeholder ecosystem.

 Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage 
collaborative and cooperative approaches that reflect the inputs and interests 
of stakeholders.

 Enabling meaningful participation: Anyone affected by an Internet 
governance process should be able to participate in that process. Particularly, 
Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity 
building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries 
and underrepresented groups.

From: Deirdre Williams 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 AM
To: Internet Governance ; Mawaki Chango 
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

I have a suggestion which I hope won't be considered too flippant. There's a game, at least in English, for whiling away long car journeys, in which the participants take turns to suggest adjectives, in alphabetical order, for "the parson's cat". 
Our "parson's cat" is "multistakeholderism"
My turn first - I suggest that an attribute of multistakeholderism is "inclusive", that we share a common understanding that multistakeholderism is (or should be) a way towards more inclusive participation in the IG debate and decision making.
Next person - either suggest another attribute that you think we perceive in common, or take what I proposed and qualify it as you think necessary - "but ....", or both.
This way we can build up a list of attributes in common while at the same time being made aware of the reservations and exceptions that people may have.
Could that work?
Deirdre

On 29 July 2014 11:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

  I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and only on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in this thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to as well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such outcome.

  Are we there yet?

  Mawaki 

  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

    Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
    think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
    point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
    understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
    to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
    “multistakeholderism” differently.

    Greetings,
    Norbert

    On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
    Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

    > +1 for common understanding.
    > Deirdre
    >
    >
    > On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
    > > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
    > > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
    > > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
    > > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
    > > understanding".
    > >
    > > Mawaki
    > >
    > >
    > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
    > > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
    > >>
    > >> Just asking
    > >>
    > >> N
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
    > >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
    > >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
    > >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
    > >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
    > >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
    > >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
    > >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
    > >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
    > >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
    > >>>
    > >>> Mawaki
    > >>>
    > >>> ____________________________________________________________
    > >>> 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
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >
    >
    >

    ____________________________________________________________
    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

  ____________________________________________________________
  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

-- 
“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/20140730/52c7fe5d/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