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

[McTim]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:25 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Monday 17 March 2014 02:21 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> Parminder,
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> Thanks for this effort.
>>
>> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
>> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
>> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
>> decision making on public policy issues...
>
>
> I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should
> be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal
> or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the
> meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
> context.)
>
>
> Would you please explain what that common understanding is.... Some of us
> have been asking for such a formulation for really really long now...


Fro our statement on NTIA:


"IGC supports the multi-stakeholder policy making model as an
inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances democracy
by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world who might be
affected by its policy decision outcomes."

This is our common understanding.



>
> Meanwhile, I once again my view make it clear - no business actors, nether
> self-selected actors declaring themselves as civil society, can have a
> 'formal role' in 'actual public policy' 'decision making' - this role is
> only for those who derive their legitimacy from people and their collectives
> through some formal political process or formations, how much ever
> inadequate they may be at present (their improvement being a different
> strand of political work). I can further clarify my position if needed.
>
> While awaiting your formulation of the 'common understanding', I think that
> those pushing the 'equal role for all stakeholders' meme, want a business
> owner, or his rep, to be having a similar role as someone coming from a
> formal political process - called governments - in making actual decision
> making. THis is death of democracy.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I have no issues with ICANN doing its limited technical and associated
> policy work in the manner that it does at present.


So business CAN have a role in public policy as long as it is only
names and numbers?  How about Standards development?

I think this is an incoherent position.


-- 
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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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