[discuss] Supporting National-Level Multistakeholder Cooperation

[Jorge Amodio]

Hi Bill,

in an ideal world that would be an interesting goal, but development of the
multistakeholder at the national/local level requires open participation at
a quasi same level playing field for all stakeholders which in a large
percentage of countries would be almost impossible.

Then whatever we can do to mitigate that and promote this model, we should
do, but it can't be a conditioning factor to keep moving ahead at the
global level.

I agree that if we generate good momentum in the right direction others
will follow.

Cheers
Jorge



On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:04 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> A number of people have suggested that subject lines should be updated to
> reflect actual contents, and I’d like to reply on something unrelated from
> the "Snowden Revelations” thread.
>
> On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:
>
> few of us as well have been saying this on this and others as well.
> Instead of spending our time trying to reinvent every wheal, we will do
> ourself good by focussing on how we can create (or improve) the link
> between global coordination/governance and local stakeholders including
> Policy makers and Governments in order to increase mutual trust and
> confidence. The future of all of this depend on our ability to calmly,
> candidly  and diligently address that.
>
>
> I think one the more positive steps that could be taken further to the SP
> conference and related initiatives would be to provide some sort of
> momentum and support for the development of multistakeholder processes at
> the national level.  It’s very difficult to have functionally effective and
> politically sustainable multistakeholder processes at the global level if
> countries’ interfaces to those processes are largely or even solely the
> province of ministries of communications or foreign affairs that are used
> to only working with xyz conceptual frameworks, missions, domestic
> constituencies, intergovernmental organizations, etc.  The involvement of
> other government ministries would be helpful, and the involvement of civil
> society, technical community and private sector constituencies is
> essential.   One has to wonder how many of the truly bad ideas of recent
> years would have been pushed if there had been more broad-based national
> processes and checks and balances.  This is arguably true for all countries
> to varying degrees, but it’s especially an issue where the relevant players
> are less empowered and organized, and lack effective access to policy
> processes.  There of course various initiatives by global partners to
> provide support and connections to particular stakeholders, but more is
> needed, as is support regarding institutional frameworks.  In many other
> global issue areas there’s extensive sharing of knowledge, good practices,
> model laws and all that, but when it comes to helping interested countries
> think through the costs/benefits and options for designing multistakeholder
> processes, what do we have for reference?  Do we just buy everyone plane
> tickets to Brazil and say go talk to CGI.br and see what they’re up to?
>  There must be more.  When WTO members negotiated the basic telecom
> agreement including the Reference Paper calling for independent regulatory
> authorities, there was a big spurt in efforts to lay out models and share
> experiences on these.  It may be worth considering whether and how
> something similar could be done with regard to national multistakeholder
> processes for Internet governance….
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140116/e2648245/attachment.html>