[discuss] Supporting National-Level Multistakeholder Cooperation

[Grigori Saghyan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Jorge,
I think without support on national/local level it will be impossible
to go forward on the global level. Just an example - WCIT 2012 Dubai:
There were 55 countries with healthy position, but 89 countries have
signed the revised version of the ITR. I agree, that in some countries
it is very hard  to promote the multi-stakeholder model. But if there
will be an exact policy to support of local ICANN/ISOC structures,
other local  NGO-s in this activity,   in lot of marginal countries it
will be possible to have a success.
Grigori Saghyan
ISOC.AM



On 16.01.2014 16:07, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> 
> 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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 <http://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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
> list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 


- -- 
Grigori Saghyan
PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS19cOAAoJEBp2GIFI5NXcBl0H/008Yx3t4dpU1n6vOTomUssZ
fhuG0aqmfP9AhqXeRRWSYcIhL6ewBCh3TxS7qJTOvxfta13wRCptlTXBPomzR0kY
qcbRq4N092LITqdNPuqS3vdwTAlYyYUwGTERX+WIpeBKNxgkBbOCLBsCBNlvNNYm
O+SavdPNfTWzAADG4xJwFyRbPw3Ftv0pcmjxx+NiLvmIh7IEwKZoDxOAEMkOnsbN
RlTs/7GoLzAP+I/id2Zcmz+bLoA1e7f4n52nZM06JYQVaM9Qi8yyXcKjjAW0Bkif
mU5ee2A3LdujN6vIF/k8m8QiRMWj+uJqRbiSyqu50LeW/zadfcozIcI52ecxjYE=
=I1PB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----