Dear Milton,
My personal understanding is that the demand for equal roles for all stakeholders in Internet Governance is usually presented vis-a-vis one specific actor: the States. The aim usually is to criticize the lack of equal footing in spaces like ITU or to argue that new issues should not be taken to these intergovernmental spaces.
A more isonomic and fair approach would be to demand equal
roles in all internet governance layers and arrangements, considering that most
of the areas of Internet governance are private-led and not government led:
from the infrastructure layer and interconnection arrangements to the development
of standards and to the terms of use of platforms in the applications layer. To be coherent the statement should argue that all
stakeholders should participate in all layers and arrangements on equal
footing.
But would that be of interest to the development of the Internet? I have doubts. My current understanding is that some areas of governance should be private-led, just like some other areas should be state-led. For example, it makes sense that the development of standards is primarily led by the technical community, although there should be transparency, openness, accountability and also real responsiveness to inputs of other actors (and ways to guarantee responsiveness). That is what I understand by different roles of different actors. Therefore, I do not think the expression should be abolished, but reinterpreted.
Of course, I understand your point of view (we exchanged many e-mails about similar points over the years :) and it is certainly a valid way of looking at things. I would support that such a document is put forward as a contribution on behalf of those who share this understanding.
Best wishes,
Marilia
It looks quite sound to me, MM. Good contribution!
sent from a dumbphoneOK, I submitted the document to Netmundial and listed NCSG as my “organization”
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Olivier Kouami
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Submission to the Brazil meeting
+1
-Olevie-
2014-02-28 4:26 GMT+00:00 Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]>:
I support the statement.
Nicolas
On 2014-02-27 3:00 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
It seems that there were several expressions of support for this statement. I have made a few minor modifications based on suggestions from comments. Should I submit this statement on my own behalf only? Can I claim that it has support from the NCSG? Or can NCSG move forward with it on its own, and submit its own version separately?
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submission to the Brazil meeting
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/
--
Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net)DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/)
SG de ESTETIC (http://www.estetic.tg)Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25
Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo