[discuss] List announcement "robust governance in the digital age"

[Seun Ojedeji]

I am indifferent about this development. However, I really wonder how this
new list make a difference especially as it's an individual initiative.
While I don't support a stakeholder exhibiting dominance on a supposed
multistakeholder platform, I still think stakeholder participation and
support is vital to the overall sustainability of a "truly"
multistakerholder platform.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 9 Feb 2014 20:41, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> hereby I to announce the creation of a new public discussion mailing
> list on the topic of how to make Internet governance structures (and
> also governance structures for other global concerns) robust against
> capture and other forms of undue influence by special interests.
>
> http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov
>
> This is going to be a topically narrow mailing list, and I'm going to
> actively manage it to ensure that it stays that way and that it has an
> excellent signal to noise ratio.
>
> The creation of this list was inspired significantly by a posting by
> Michael Gurstein on the IGC and BestBits mailing lists (quoted in full
> below) in which he observes that in many discussions of Internet
> governance structures, there is a naïve and dangerous implicit
> assumption denying the possibility of "significant, well-funded, very
> smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to ... ensure the
> dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests".
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> >   On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >
> >     I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
> >     the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly
> > take these realities of particular interests (which are often in
> > conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
> >
> >
> >     Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >     > As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning
> >     > Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I'm
> >     > struck by one overwhelming observation...
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with
> >     > respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions)
> >     > are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors
> >     > (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and
> >     > the well-being of the Internet.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance
> >     > structure and that proposal for the "management of decision
> >     > making through MSism" all are making the completely unwarranted
> >     > and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there
> >     > are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely
> >     > unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
> >     > ensure the dominance of their own
> >     > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever
> >     > emerges from whatever process.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very seriously
> >     > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures
> >     > can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail...
> >     > that these processes are not captured and subverted... i.e. what
> >     > are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that
> >     > "we" (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are
> >     > promoting.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> >     > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be
> >     > impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and
> >     > the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the
> >     > responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to
> >     > support one's own narrow (corporate/national/institutional )
> >     > interests and what the significance of this observation has to
> >     > be for these discussions and their outputs.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple
> >     > common sense.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been
> >     > telling us?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > M
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140209/ef355157/attachment-0001.html>