I want to bring more focus to my Food for Though comments about the
Forum NETmundial Initiative.
There are two dimensions to civil society participation in Internet
issues. One dimension, to be applauded, is the dedicated volunteer
effort at influencing policy and implementation, and pushing for
multistakeholder processes in policy development and implementation.
Warts, challenges and all, ICANN is the poster child organization
here.
The other dimension, of concern, is the pressing need to broadening
and deepening civil society stakeholder awareness and engagement in
the issues surrounding the Internet. This is crucial and it is where
civil society efforts have been weak. [The current NCSG voters
roll problem is current exhibit #1] The occasion of the
Initiative’s consultative dialogue can be used to advance awareness
and engagement in the broader issues surrounding governance.
My comment about the Forum NETmundial initiative was to prompt
thought. It comes from neither a hope about, nor an endorsement of,
the initiative. The first part of the comment was background; a
concise overview of the intent of the initiative without editorial
comment other than to suggest that yet another 900 pound governance
gorilla is being considered here. I personally fear the risk that
this might result in an inadequate multistakeholder entity, with
inadequate stakeholder accountability.
The second part was to prompt a stronger civil society strategy for
the ensuing dialogue. Whether the initiative produces a 900 pound
gorilla, or a 90 pound scarecrow, the interim dialogue and
consultation are an opportunity to broaden awareness and engagement
across stakeholder constituencies. Without that, civil society
multistakeholder involvement will remain thin and suffer its own
top-down, accountability, and legitimacy challenges.
The Initiative is one more opportunity for civil society activists
to turn around 180 degrees and do some housekeeping and homework
with their own constituencies, work that is long overdue.
Sam L.