Hi Milton,

Since it is based on "what they say" that makes you determine they
don't/won't fit then you may be right about me not paying too much
attention to the political side of this. As I don't see how saying those
things outside (and having their way) would be better than saying those
things inside. Literary speaking, these folks will only have 5 votes out of
about 29. If their votes would really count, would it not mean that it was
indeed on a legitimate and worthwhile view/effort?

Without sounding like spoke person of the GAC, my view is that there is a
unique opportunity to have a common mouthpiece/umbrella/platform which is
the CMSM and saying GAC should not have participative role puts us at
current status-quo where we put the board in a difficult situation of
having to decide on GAC advice and then the community point fingers at
board action/inaction on GAC thereafter.

As usual, I rest my case.

Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 31 Aug 2015 16:17, "Mueller, Milton L" <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of
> *Seun Ojedeji
>
> The CMSM powers is not (should not) be attached to current roles but
> rather to stakeholders. GAC is a distinct stakeholder, so seeing them as
> literal advisers does not (will not) IMO promote multiskaholderism neither
> will it ensure accountability of not just the board but also of the entire
> community.
>
> I hope you are a strong supporter of multistakeholderism?
>
>
>
> Seun,
>
> This is a misconception of multistakeholderism – but it is a common
> mistake and many people make it. Governments, as organized and segregated
> in the GAC, are not “stakeholders” in the same sense that the rest of us
> are. Governments are an alternative and in some ways competing and
> incompatible governance institution.
>
>
>
> Just read what they actually say.
>
>
>
> Governments are not saying, “as users of the internet and providers of
> networks, we have a certain stake and interest in how names and numbers are
> governed, just like the rest of you do.”
>
>
>
> No. They are saying this: We represent the entire public (all
> stakeholders) in our society. We have a monopoly on the development of
> public policy, that is our role exclusively, and no other stakeholders can
> impinge on it. Their claim to represent the public directly contradicts the
> ability of members and organizations in that public to represent THEMSELVES
> in a multistakeholder process.
>
>
>
> If governments want to be “just another stakeholder” then they have to
> dissolve the GAC as a segregated and privileged source of policy and allow
> any government agency to involve itself independently in any working group
> or process, just like the rest of us do.  There has to be room for
> different opinions within governments as well as across governments; e.g.,
> let the data protection authority speak independently of the law
> enforcement authority, and let the Ediucation Ministry speak for itself,
> don’t funnel everything into a single national position that claims to
> represent the entire public of a country.
>
>
>
> I know you are network administrator and not a political scientist or
> student of government, so I think you may not appreciate the distinction. I
> encourage you to think about it.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>