[governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

That is where stakeholders who make a meaningful contribution as opposed to 
steak holders who demand a stake just because comes into the picture.


On 18 March 2014 7:20:03 am stephanie perrin 
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> The final question you ask is one I ask myself every time I go to open my 
> mouth. No good answer yet, we need more accountability.
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>
> From: Pranesh Prakash
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:41 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; Mawaki Chango; 
> parminder
> Reply To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to
>
> the NTIA announcement of March 14
>
> Dear Anriette and Mawaki,
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> [2014-03-17 10:12:36]:
> > Good points Mawaki.  And good statement too.  I do think that in this
> > paragraph you capture what many, if not most of us, understand by
> > inclusive policy making/multi-stakeholder participation in policy making.
>
> I'm not very sure about this.  What Mawaki describes is consultative and
> inclusive policymaking.  In this, relevant actors and stakeholders are
> *consulted* by the policymaker and their views are used in policy
> formulation.  These stakeholders are *not* regarded as "co-equals" at
> the policy table since they do not jointly make the decision.  It seems
> to me that there is a big difference between consultative and inclusive
> policymaking (e.g., the government issuing white papers and green papers
> and holding consultations, putting up the submissions, issuing a
> reasoned decision at the end of it, etc.) and treating stakeholders as
> co-decision-makers.
>
> On the NCSG mailing list, I recently asked (in response to Milton's
> submission to NetMundial, in which he uses the term "co-equal"):
>
> * Governments, through votes or through other means, have gained
> political legitimacy to represent their nation-state.
>
> * Intergovernmental organizations claim political legitimacy by being
> membership-driven aggregations of these nation-states, and seek to
> espouse the 'global' point of view (and do a poor job of it, very often).
>
> * Business and technical organizations claim political legitimacy both
> by having historically been in control of this network of networks, and
> by the fact that there is no way possible for its continued operation
> without them.
>
> * Where do civil society actors (and academics), especially those many
> of us who *aren't membership organizations and don't have grassroot
> networks* to back us, get our political legitimacy from?  What answer
> should we give when asked, "Who died and made you king/queen/boss/co-equal?"
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140318/6ae5a272/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