[IRP] appologies - input - multistakholderism & a telco meeting?
Sat Dec 19 14:37:05 EET 2009
Dear Koven and all
@Koven: thanks for sharing this very interesting short overview of some
Before I try to define my approach/argument better, I would like to again
(1) invite others to join our discussion and (2) suggest that a (conf-call)
FoE coalition meeting would be the best way to find common ground and define
a way forward.
Despite what seems to be perceived, I have no one-size-fits-all approach in
mind. However I believe that internet governance should always be approached
from a humanistic and holistic/systemic angle, simply because it is a global
ecosystem and because I consider myself a humanist.
When it comes to multistakeholderism my perspective is quite simple: we all
have differnent expertise and multistakeholderism is a way to allow all
relevant parties to participate in the deliberation and consensus seeking
process (at least on internet related governance questions "rough consensus
and running code" has traditionally been the leitmotiv). It is the openness
of the IGF that has always impressed me and that I believe makes it a very
suitable format for internet governance politics.
While I appreciate the indispensable participation of subject mater experts,
I believe in a multistakeholder space it is important to be inclusive, reach
out to new comers and share knowledge rather than lecture. Only in such a
constructive and optimistic environment is IMHO productive and forward
looking internet governance collaboration possible. Nobody wants to
participate in a community where people fight all the time :-) and this is
not to say that I dont acknowledge that there is a very fine line between
fighting and debating hard.
Would be good to meet and talk about a 2010 program for the FoE coalition.
> I guess that one should conclude that the variety of answers that have been
> given to the public complaints problem reflects the variety of historical
> and cultural expereinces. That seems to suggest that a search for a
> universal, one-size-fits-all solution should be approached with extreme
> caution, if at all. I think it is a field where less is more. That's where
> our differences seem to be, Max. You seem to feel that more is more. And
> there, I will concede that that's a not totally unrespectable reflection of
> the expeeriences of recent European history. But others have different
> experiences and traditions that make it very hard to accept the dominant
> European Continental regulatory approach.
> Best regards, Rony Koven
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IRP