[discuss] [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet

Thu Dec 19 16:21:15 UTC 2013

________________________________
From: Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) [TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg]

>>Agreed. And this historical context is important. I keep insisting that the whole concept of roles
>>was simply some states way of subverting the whole notion of direct participation in
>>policy making by nonstate actors. If you believe in the so-called MS model, you have to
>>push back against that now.

>

>1. As far as I can recall (and it's practically a decade now), I remember it as the complete opposite. >Governments back in 2004 were saying that they represented everybody

Exactly. They were saying that states represented all staekholders indirectly, and thus there was no need for direct representation of civil society (or the private sector). This is not "the opposite" of what Bill and I were saying. If states represent everybody perfectly, there is no need for anyone but states to participate in the process.

>The words "respective roles" were therefore inserted to
>recognise that civil society had a role to play.

Yes, it had a role: but a _subordinate_ role to states. In this view of the world, states make policy, they are the deciders, and the other stakeholders merely inform or lobby them.

>I expect that it would be difficult if not impossible to arrive at a New and Improved
>version of the definition today.

One does not need an entirely new definition of IG. One simply needs to challenge - and dispense with - the WSIS definition of roles.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131219/446a01cf/attachment-0001.html>