Marilia:
In responding, it is best to remember exactly what the proposed principle says:
In multistakeholder institutions for global Internet governance, all individuals – regardless of whether they are agents of governments, international organizations, the technical
community, the private sector, civil society or interested individuals – should have equal status as participants in the formulation of public policies.
The key phrase I want to call to your attention is: “In multistakeholder institutions for global internet governance.” In other words, I am just talking about
policy development institutions such as ICANN, IETF, RIRs, IGF.
To say that all stakeholders should have equal status in the management of private property such as the Syracuse University network, or the AT&T network, of
course it would be crazy.
However, the development of technical standards is “led by” the technical community not because there is a rule or principle that only techies can do it, but
because those with technical competence tend to rise to positions of authority by general consensus in the standard-setting institutions. Just as, in policy making institutions, people with legal or policy backgrounds may become more important.
But in general, when you say “I do not think the expression
should be abolished, but reinterpreted “ I do would have to disagree; insofar as states have done a lot of damage within
the ICANN context by claiming that they have special authority over that and I just want to put the clamp down on those claims.
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Submission to the Brazil meeting
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
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
It looks quite sound to me, MM. Good contribution!
sent from a dumbphone
On 28/02/2014, at 17:45, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
OK, 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
--
Marília Maciel
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
DiploFoundation associate