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.
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