[discuss] NETmundial and CSTD mtg
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed May 28 02:15:51 UTC 2014
My apologies for the lateness of my response to this. I have been double and triple booked as described. But I do agree with Nick's characterization of the situation. I wish I could answer Ian's excellent question (repeated below) because I think the legitimacy of all players in a multistakeholder model is such a critical point. It does seem to me that a really bold followup to Netmundial is required, but I can't figure out what that might look like.
Cheers Stephanie Perrin
Mawaki:The question is, can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts.
Ian I think Net Mundial made a good but imperfect attempt at this.
But equally, is there any way with MSism we can improve on the serious problems that exist with UN system? There are countless examples within current international systems of nation state votes being bought by promises of increased foreign aid etc, and of nation state positions being determined by corporate interests. So we already have a system which is quite flawed, and is stifled whenever it attempts to make any change that affects the status quo. My question is can we improve on it?
I don ‘t yet see how any system or systemic change is going to completely stop powerful interests dictating policy to less powerful ones. However, I am wondering whether rough consensus is going to be useful or dangerous in this context.
On 2014-05-19, at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> I wish I had this sense of optimism but I don't - not only are we not making progress, our friends are increasingly exhausted. Some delegations with the Internet portfolio here are double and triple-booked (as, often, am I) trying to cover the growing number of meetings and they are having difficulties justifying some of these activities to their bosses who ask if it is worth much effort to endlessly play defence. In addition, continuing to have progress blocked in working-level meetings means that more things will get bumped to the UNGA, where countries can and do call for votes - and candidly, or open Internet perspectives may well not have the votes there.
> The traditional fora where IG is discussed are increasingly stalemated - or being designed to fail - and it would be a great mistake to think otherwise. I wish it weren't true, and it may seem slightly different to those (most) who simply attend meetings in Geneva, but living here there's no question of the trouble we are in and that it is getting worse.
> On 19 May 2014, at 07:42, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> It is sometimes challenging to assess progress but I believe that we made some excellent progress at CSTD overall, taking into account it is indeed an intergovernmental organization, but one which allows participation from WSIS accredited entities. Those entities routinely accept participants from their community and let them register. In the resolution negotiation sessions, we are observers, but speakers are included in the panels and discussions of the overall work of the Commission. In fact, business and civil society both had speakers, as did the technical community. The Commission has a dual focus: STE 4 D and WSIS follow up.
>> It is important to engage in both, as they are not separable, and I do hope that all on this list care about Science and Technology for Developing Countries, as well as IG/WSIS follow up. BOTH are inter related, and mutually reinforcing.
>> And, yes, not everyone is in agreement, but small steps forward often provide building blocks toward sustainable change.
>> I am hopeful that CSTD/UNCTAD will do an open forum at IGF in Instanbul which would provide an opportunity for more to learn more about the full nature of the Commission and its work.
>> From: nigel.hickson at icann.org
>> To: nb at bollow.ch; discuss at 1net.org
>> Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 14:56:19 -0700
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] NETmundial and CSTD mtg
>> Good evening
>> Just for the record; there were representatives from the Technical
>> Community (as well as Business and Civil Society) at the CSTD; and indeed
>> present (well most of usŠ) till the close at 23.40 on Friday. We could
>> speak, though agree was not a simple process.
>> On 5/18/14 7:44 AM, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> >Having followed this process as closely as possible as a remote
>> >participant (including via very unofficial channel involving copies of
>> >intermediary versions of the draft outcome document) I agree with this
>> >important observation by Avri.
>> >That is exactly what happened, and if we close our eyes to this
>> >reality, we are just fooling ourselves.
>> >Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >> But I argue that at the end of the last day,
>> >> in the last discussions,
>> >> in the bargaining over the final wording:
>> >> some footing was more equal than others.
>> >> At 17:07 17/05/2014, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >> >My take:
>> >> >was not
>> >> "Some of us, myself included, are dismayed at the fact that some
>> >> of the corporations used their wealth based power to sway the
>> >> outcome document at the very end of the discussion, but that
>> >> happens in the multilateral world as well, just less visibly and
>> >> without any chance for other stakeholders to do anything to
>> >> counter it."
>> >discuss mailing list
>> >discuss at 1net.org
>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss