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 > > > > > > >