This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
[I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance? [Was: Europe at a tipping point?]
william.drake at uzh.ch
Wed Dec 18 13:06:21 CET 2013
On Dec 18, 2013, at 1:23 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Principles
> I would support starting a focused discussion on principles of multistakeholderism, particularly as the Brazil meeting is meant to draw the world's attention to the benefits of multistakeholderism vis-a-vis all the other models. I saw at the IGF in Bali that some work has been done on this by a group of organizations including CGI.br and APC. The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values also seems to have done some work on principles.
> On Good Practices/Concrete Examples of Working Multistakeholderism
> I would also suggest that the 1net.org website have a feature for gathering "good practices" or examples of working multistakeholderism at the national, regional and global levels from the "community" that believes in multistakeholderism. I have seen some examples under "Enhanced Cooperation", but I think the world needs to have more examples captured for sharing and learning.
This would be helpful indeed, including to the HLP, in which there’s been some interest expressed in encouraging the spread of national MS, and will be a work stream on participation, including by developing countries, that could dig into this more.
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:34 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi George
> On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You say: "Do we really have nothing more important to be doing here at this point than redefining the wheel as just a round thingy? I thought this list was supposed to be for coordination of multistakeholder dialogue on Sao Paulo and beyond, but it seems to alternate between being a troll paradise and the site of a lot of meandering debates on points that are generally being addressed more systematically elsewhere. Or am I alone in this perception?"
>> I agree that we need to address points systematically. Can you provide a list of systematic points (dare we call them issues?) that it would, in your view, be useful to discuss?
> Well, why not start with the question of principles? The initiators of the SP meeting have been saying from the outset they’d like to have a sort of multistakeholder declaration of principles. Presumably it’d be helpful if 1net participants were to provide some input on this, and presumably we’d like it to be more than just nice fluffy words. Why not discuss the range of options to make this a useful exercise, and see where there’s cross-stakeholder consensus and where there’s not? It’s something concrete that needs to be done, and they want input by 1 March.
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination