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

[michael gurstein]

Thanks for pointing to this report Deidre, I think overall it is a very valuable document and a bit of a model for how to move forward in jurisdictionally divided contexts.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:15 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

 

Yesterday the Caribbean Telecommunications Union added  <http://www.ctu.int/download/Principles%20for%20a%20Singles%20%20ICT%20Space%202.0.pdf> Principles for a Seamless ICT Space - A preliminary discussion paper V 2.0 to the <http://www.ctu.int/component/content/article/163>  list of documents for the Caribbean IGF to be held next week in Nassau. The CTU was set up by CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, and clearly defines itself as an intergovernmental organisation. On page 9 of the document you will find this list:

"6. The Role of Stakeholders

The following outlines the roles of each of the major stakeholders in making the Single 

ICT Space a reality:

· Governments

· Regulators

· Operators

· CARICOM Institutions

· Other Caribbean Organisations" (I have edited it to leave only the bullets)

My initial response was - "I" am not there - but I will be there, at the meeting, at the CTU's invitation, as a full participant. So what's going on?

I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is caused by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as being one with a tangible, concrete investment in a process. Google and Facebook etc qualify, "we" don't. But the issue isn't that type of investment. The issue is approach or perspective. POV (point of view) would be better than stakeholder. The CTU's list accords perfectly with its perspective as an intergovernmental organisation. Currently the list I quote above is what is ethically possible for that organisation. But at the same time they are opening themselves to consider POVs of other people and groups.

What we need to do is start thinking about different approaches, and open negotiations among the points of view to meld them into a whole. "Stakeholder" sounds like a sort of ownership and distorts the argument. Please try to think about it this way and see if it makes sense to you.

Deirdre

 

 

On 30 July 2014 20:24, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

Correction:

 

 ...qualifying the need for distinction between stakeholder groups *[erase --> which are regularly raised] when faced with nominating representatives/delegates as a flaw (...) and then *faulting the Geneva-WSIS type of MSism for it... 

 

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> McTim,
>
> You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
> from, the ITU/WSIS breed.

I've never made that point.  I HAVE however consistently pointed out
that what goes on in Geneva is "meta-IG" and that BUTOC (Bottom Up,
Transparent, Open, Consensus-based) processes are far superior to
those where governments have a greater role than anyone else.

 

Well, I feel pretty sure having read you more than once qualifying the need for distinction between stakeholder groups which are regularly raised when faced with nominating representatives/delegates as a flaw (eg, CS vs. business reps or CS vs. Technical community reps), and then faulting it onto the Geneva-WSIS type of MSism... like they created it. This is quite a different problem from the question of governments having greater role.

 

But if you think that is a misreading from my part, then I hope this would also mean that you're hereby recognizing that the difficulties coming with grouping and labeling stakeholders --which inevitably requires distinguishing between them-- do not particularly originate from the Geneva-WSIS type of MSism.

 

Thank you for the links to useful resources.

Best,

 

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





 

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/bd6dd262/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