Hi,

My recall:

The WGIG never came to those roles and reprehensibilities.  they had 
been determined earlier in the Geneva portion of the WSIS and were 
carried forward as agree government text that the WGIG never was allowed 
to examine.

While Chatham House rule forbids me from saying who all insisted these 
were agreed text, I can assure you I tired and tired and tried until I 
was told to repress myself - it was agreed text. Period.

avri


On 01-Mar-14 13:46, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Dear all,
> If possible, I'd also like to know a bit more about how the Working
> Group on Internet Governance, which had been tasked with discussions on
> the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders, came to it's
> consensus views on this
>
> In the April 2005 draft paper "Towards a Common Understanding of the
> Roles and Responsibilities of all Stakeholders in Internet Governance",
> which preceded the WGIG report, it is noted:
>
> "The WSIS criteria themselves may well be regarded as having different
> shades of meaning in different contexts. For example, it is obviously
> not the case that “full involvement of all” must mean that everybody
> should have the same role in the development of policies, the
> preparation of decisions, the actual decisions and then the
> implementation of decisions."
>
> Milton: Based on your comments in May 2005 to the above paper, you don't
> seem to have a problem with that formulation.  (The gripe you seem to
> raise with it is that "analysis of ICANN would be improved if the papers
> take a sharper focus on the problem of sovereignty and territoriality".)
>
> In the WGIG report itself, it states:
> The roles and responsibilities of civil society include:
> • Awareness-raising and capacity-building (knowledge, training, skills
> sharing).
> • Promoting various public interest objectives.
> • Facilitating network-building.
> • Mobilizing citizens in democratic processes.
> • Bringing perspectives of marginalized groups, including, for example,
> excluded communities and grass-roots activists.
> • Engaging in policy processes.
> • Contributing expertise, skills, experience and knowledge in a range of
> ICT policy areas.
> • Contributing to policy processes and policies that are more bottom-up,
> people-centred and inclusive.
> • Research and development of technologies and standards.
> • Development and dissemination of best practices.
> • Helping to ensure that political and market forces are accountable to
> the needs of all members of society.
> • Encouraging social responsibility and good governance practice.
> • Advocating for the development of social projects and activities that
> are critical but may not be “fashionable” or profitable.
> • Contributing to shaping visions of human-centred information societies
> based on human rights, sustainable development, social justice and
> empowerment.
>
> Milton: Had this language (of "engaging in policy processes" and
> "contributing to policy processes and policies that are more bottom-up,
> people-centred and inclusive", etc.) been adopted into the Tunis Agenda,
> would that have made it okay in your opinion?  Or is the very idea of
> "respective roles and responsibilities" itself a problem?
>
> Given that Carlos A. Afonso, Peng Hwa Ang, Karen Banks, Avri Doria,
> William Drake, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Jovan Kurbalija, Olivier Nana
> Nzepa, Alejandro Pisanty, all of whom are still around in the IG sphere,
> were part of the WGIG, it would be useful to know what they think too.
> Unfortunately, being new to NCSG, I don't know who all is part of this
> mailing list.
>
> Cheers,
> Pranesh
>
>
> Pranesh Prakash <[log in to unmask]> [2014-03-01 11:21:09]:
>> Dear Milton,
>> Would you have prior writings that I can refer to (perhaps you could
>> direct me to the right part of one of your books?) on the issue of
>> political legitimacy for this view on stakeholder equality?  Or perhaps
>> some social or political theorists I should be reading?
>>
>> Governments, through votes or through other means, have gained political
>> legitimacy to represent their nation-state.
>> Intergovernmental organizations claim political legitimacy by being
>> membership-driven aggregations of these nation-states, and seek to
>> espouse the 'global' point of view (and do a poor job of it, very often).
>> Business and technical organizations claim political legitimacy both by
>> having historically been in control of this network of networks, and by
>> the fact that there is no way possible for its continued operation
>> without them.
>> Where do civil society actors (and academics), especially those many of
>> us who *aren't membership organizations and don't have grass routes
>> networks* to back us, get our political legitimacy from?  What answer
>> should we give when asked, "Who died and made you
>> king/queen/boss/co-equal?"
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pranesh
>>
>> Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> [2014-02-26 23:18:23]:
>>> Dear fellow NCSG members:
>>>
>>> I am involved in preparing two submissions to the Brazil meeting. One,
>>> with Brenden Kuerbis, is a detailed proposal for globalization of
>>> IANA. It is not ready yet, but watch for it.
>>>
>>> The other is a proposed principle about stakeholder equality. That
>>> statement is ready for your viewing and comment here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuWn6tnQBFhXKz6FumabAHpG3zfCNx2ZBPzWNw3Ifo4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a short 2-pager, 600 words. I just want to test the waters and
>>> see how much support there is for this or whether it needs major
>>> revisions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Milton Mueller
>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>