[governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

[michael gurstein]

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by
Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or
accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no
(evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the
stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are
some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr. those with "role
flexibilities".

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain
gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the ("non-existent"-we have it on the
highest possible authority-trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A
appears to consist of repeated choruses of "trust them it will get better"
by a fawning self-selected "Steering Committee", but surely in our world we
might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:





So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about
public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty
point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.
This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly
agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the
key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse
the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.
I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because
I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general
proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I
personally objected to that language being used.

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals
in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at
all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate
that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately
take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a
leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community
may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in
developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance
practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for
the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in
each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if
you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the
appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.





BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to
NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it
maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140305/01e87149/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