<p dir="ltr">I am indifferent about this development. However, I really wonder how this new list make a difference especially as it's an individual initiative. While I don't support a stakeholder exhibiting dominance on a supposed multistakeholder platform, I still think stakeholder participation and support is vital to the overall sustainability of a "truly" multistakerholder platform.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 9 Feb 2014 20:41, "Norbert Bollow" <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear all,<br>
<br>
hereby I to announce the creation of a new public discussion mailing<br>
list on the topic of how to make Internet governance structures (and<br>
also governance structures for other global concerns) robust against<br>
capture and other forms of undue influence by special interests.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov" target="_blank">http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov</a><br>
<br>
This is going to be a topically narrow mailing list, and I'm going to<br>
actively manage it to ensure that it stays that way and that it has an<br>
excellent signal to noise ratio.<br>
<br>
The creation of this list was inspired significantly by a posting by<br>
Michael Gurstein on the IGC and BestBits mailing lists (quoted in full<br>
below) in which he observes that in many discussions of Internet<br>
governance structures, there is a na�ve and dangerous implicit<br>
assumption denying the possibility of “significant, well-funded, very<br>
smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to ... ensure the<br>
dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests”.<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for<br>
> the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly<br>
> take these realities of particular interests (which are often in<br>
> conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Michael Gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning<br>
> > Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I’m<br>
> > struck by one overwhelming observation…<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with<br>
> > respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions)<br>
> > are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors<br>
> > (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and<br>
> > the well-being of the Internet.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance<br>
> > structure and that proposal for the “management of decision<br>
> > making through MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted<br>
> > and dare I say, na�ve and even dangerous assumption that there<br>
> > are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely<br>
> > unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and<br>
> > ensure the dominance of their own<br>
> > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever<br>
> > emerges from whatever process.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very seriously<br>
> > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures<br>
> > can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail…<br>
> > that these processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what<br>
> > are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that<br>
> > “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are<br>
> > promoting.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the<br>
> > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be<br>
> > impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and<br>
> > the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the<br>
> > responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to<br>
> > support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional )<br>
> > interests and what the significance of this observation has to<br>
> > be for these discussions and their outputs.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple<br>
> > common sense.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been<br>
> > telling us?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > M<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote></div>