[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

Marilia Maciel mariliamaciel at gmail.com
Fri Jan 24 20:13:07 UTC 2014

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Yes, of course, the traditional way is for all the agency differences
> within a government to be consolidated into a single position, and for the
> _majority_ in a parliament to formulate a single, centralized position for
> an entire national polity. What this means is that dozens of perspectives
> and positions are lost, and the ability of these different interests to
> form coalitions with like-minded agencies or people in other governments or
> other parliaments is lost. A robust, denationalized multistakeholder
> process, on the other hand, would reflect and encourage the full airing of
> these differences in a globalized and transparent way.

I think one of the positive features of the MS process is that it allows
these positions that were "lost" in internal democratic processes to be
brought again to the surface in global debates. You don't need to dismember
the State into agencies or individuals for that. Positions that "clash"
inside the Executive or the Parliament are a reflect of clashes in society.
Non-governmental stakeholders can carry with them this diversity of views.

> >As individual experts government delegates would count as civil society
> in my eyes.
> More to the point, the civil society/govt distinction would not even
> matter if the process could allow individual experts to freely voice their
> views. But as you also noted, existing state-based institutions would
> prevent such an individual expert from being fully active and fully
> utilized in a multistakeholder process, in most cases (there are
> exceptions), because such a person would not be "accountable" to the
> "official" policy of the state.

What you argue (state-based institutions preventing public servants from
speaking freely and being "fully active") could apply to other stakeholder
groups as well. With different degrees, individuals from all stakeholder
groups have their views bound by the group they belong, or at least by
their job positions. Do you really think that someone working for ICANN
(for the sake of example), could attend a global debate and argue that, in
his individual opinion as an expert, new gTLDs should not exist? Do you
really think that peer pressure does not count in community based and
network organizations? That people just speak what they think regardless of
what peers will think about it? That would be a good world to live in...

> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School

DiploFoundation associate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140124/fc0a13fd/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list