[discuss] [governance] [ciresearchers] NETmundial documentsonline for comment
avri at acm.org
Sat Apr 19 11:48:23 UTC 2014
> *From:*Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> I agree with your point Michael. I am travelling now, but I think you
> should make the point in NetMundial document somehow that extending
> multistakeholderism to all aspects on governance “on the internet” could
> be problematic and does not have universal agreement.
Of course no point of view has universal agreement, no matter how small
or large the group.
I beleive that some form of multistakeholderism is appropriate for any
Internet governance issue. I argue that a uni-stakeholder system is
_never_ appropriate for the Internet. Or anywhere else for that matter.
Though I would agree that extending any one system to the Internet is
going to be problematic. What is most problematic is the view that
multistakeholderism only consists of one model, or that any form of the
model is the solution to all issues. Each issue has an appropriate form
of the multistakeholder model, different sets of actors, roles and
responsibilities. The difficulty is coming to consensus on the proper mix.
Just wanted to make sure we knew that we did not have universal
agreement on your statement. I may be alone, but I think that
multistakeholderism, in its variety of expressions and modalities of
participatory democracy, is the only way forward possible. Anything
else leaves some relevant actors outside the solution and is
More information about the discuss