<div dir="ltr">@all<br><br>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:150%" lang="EN-US">I
agree with Sam that the incentives are a little bit odd; not engaging could bring
the lowest risk for the organizations. Although, I do wonder if that is not a self-fulfilling
prophecy, since, If all civil society stakeholders wait to see if bottom up occurs
to get involved, then there will not be enough civil society stakeholders to
push that agenda properly and at the end it won’t happened. I think that the
idea behind using the stakeholders model is that they can come together to
gather power, share goals and debate with other stakeholders at a more equal
level. With that in mind, it would be our responsibility to unify civil society
stakeholders as much as we can, even if we are outnumbered. In addition, that does
not necessary means validating a biased process. If the process is a lie and
does not respect the established rules then we can always step out or make proper
claims. Something I picked up at ICANN is that legitimacy is hard to achieve
and is not easy to maintain.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:150%" lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:150%" lang="EN-US">Cheers,</span></p>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font>Martín P. Silva Valent</font><div><font>Abogado / Lawyer</font></div><div><font>+54 911 64993943</font></div><div><a href="mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com" style="font-size:small" target="_blank">mpsilvavalent@gmail.com</a></div><div><br></div><div><font size="1">--------------------------------------------</font></div><div><p style="text-align:justify"><font size="1"><span style="line-height:107%">Este
email, incluyendo adjuntos, podría contener información confidencial
protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. Si Ud. no
es el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusión, copia o retención
de este email o su contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Si Ud. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:107%">recibio este email por
error, por favor avise inmediatamente al remitente por teléfono o email y
borre el mismo de su computadora. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:107%">/ </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:107%">This e-mail,
including any attachments, may contain information that is protected by
law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for the sole use
of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of this
e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender
by telephone or reply e-mail, and permanently delete this e-mail from
your computer system. </span></font></p></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-11-18 17:26 GMT-03:00 Sam Lanfranco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca" target="_blank">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal">The WEF has always been an Economic Forum, and
its DNA is
imprinted with a top-down view of the world, with participation
lead by the
wealthy and powerful. The WEF lacks neither resources nor economic
issues to
deal with, so one might ask “Why is the WEF talking a lead role in
this
post-NETmundial initiative?” Since it is certainly not out of
need, it is based on opportunity. It is not difficult to draw up a
list of
reasons for WEF interest, ranging from the good to the bad.
However, no matter what one
selects from that list there are two core questions remaining for
civil
society. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The first is what are the benefits and risks of
joining in an
initiative that, in practice, may or may not be open and
inclusive? The second,
of course, is what are the risks, or benefits, of not joining?
Those civil
society groups that join, and are “represented” are at risk if the
process
turns out to be non-inclusive and resistant to bottom up
participation. If the
process is inclusive and open to bottom up participation, it
doesn’t really
matter if a civil society group is formally represented by
designation, or effectively
engaged via participation. I am pleased that the Board of ISOC
decided not to
participate. There are damaging downside risks if the initiative
goes badly,
and if the initiative goes well there is full scope for bottom up
engagement by
all stakeholders. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lastly, doing right, by being open and
inclusive is not all
that difficult to understand. The initiative does not need civil
society
representation to understand that. The WEF initiative can get it
right by
simply embracing those core values from the start and, in an open
and transparent way, building from there. As a
economist with a long perspective on the WEF I am skeptical of the
ability of
the “WEF leopard” to change its spots, but would be more than
happy if this WEF
led initiative proved me wrong. In either case I would rather
participate as a
member of a stakeholder constituency, without the questionable
label of “stakeholder representative”. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sam Lanfranco, Chair<br>
NPOC Policy Committee<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>