[discuss] My current understanding of scope and why
nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 8 14:03:52 UTC 2014
First of all, I would like to thank Philip, Andrew, Lee, Brian and JFC for their valuable assistance and inputs.
But I have a few more questions :)
From a logistical point of view, and this also goes back to the situation highlighted by Jorge, it looks like we might not be able to move things in the right direction without structures that can represent CS's views and insure a continued presence to pursue the dialogue with other stakeholders (lobbying, for example)
Why was the possibility of a Secretariat and/or a permanent CS Umbrella organization never implemented?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, well I understand your position, which seems to me to come from a very strict and cynical sort of realism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28international_relations%29), whereas I am more of a liberal institutionalist who holds that there are forces that can drive states to cooperate with each other, and with other international actors, through new multi-stakeholder governance networks, and that in the long term these can influence policy change both within and outside of domestic legal processes. So that's where our approach to the Brazil meeting and Internet governance reform differs. But whose approach is "nonsense" is in the eye of the beholder.
> In that sense then lets say that I'm a liberal machiavellic realist with a strong pragmatic view of trying to accomplish what is possible without wasting time and resources on endless discussions that will get nothing done in the short term.
> I recognize that multi-stakeholder organizations can influence the decision process in some matters but as ICANN demonstrates being 15 years old and still not mature and being the long term too long for these type of processes as IGF demonstrates, we need a more effective approach to get tangible results in the near term. Is 1net the conduit to make that happen?, I don't know yet.
> We all want world peace, but as laudable that thought is we know is not achievable with the current state of affairs.
> I don't think that anarchic chaos is the solution but you can be as liberal as you want but we live in a real world, and until somebody hits the nail with the hammer the portrait will keep falling.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss