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

[McTim]

When you top post, one can't tell who you are replying to.

It looks like you are replying to PJS, but the content of your message
suggest otherwise.

rgds,

McTim



On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:57 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/95b2732c/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