UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

@all

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.


Cheers,


Martín P. Silva Valent
Abogado / Lawyer
+54 911 64993943
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com

--------------------------------------------

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.  recibio este email por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al
remitente por  teléfono o email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / 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.

2014-11-18 17:26 GMT-03:00 Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>:

>  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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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”.
>
> Sam Lanfranco, Chair
> NPOC Policy Committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141118/eb21a8ea/attachment.htm>