[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

Tijani BEN JEMAA tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
Mon Jul 16 16:42:20 UTC 2018

I can’t agree more with you. Excellent and precise words. I do support your statement and insist on the civil society to avoid infiltration of lobbyists for political and/or financial interests.

Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
            +216 52 385 114

> Le 16 juil. 2018 à 16:28, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> a écrit :
> It is of course a risk that the multi-stakeholder model be tilted towards the interests of one part of the stakeholders - this is why, incidentally, Fadi was talking about *global* *equal* multi-stakeholder (“GEMS") model.
> That there is a potential corruption of the model is no good reason for rejecting it, in particular in lack of a better system. So I would argue that the way to go is to make sure that the voice of the different stakeholders compose with the requirement of being “global” (meaning all have a chance to get to the table) and “equal” (meaning all have the same voice).
> In practice, civil society, because of the inherent limitations about financial power, should be subsidised to participate, and civil society itself has to make sure that it avoids infiltration of lobbyists among its rank and file.
> Cheers,
> R
>> On 16.07.2018, at 00:05, bzs at theworld.com <mailto:bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
>> On July 16, 2018 at 01:48 6.Internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.Internet at gmail.com>(Sivasubramanian M) wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs at theworld.com <mailto:bzs at theworld.com>> wrote:
>>>    Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel.
>>> ( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this anology,
>>> it merely requires a simple, very simple fix:  Reserve a third of the hotel by
>>> unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it, and to
>>> anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier
>>> stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance.
>> I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some
>> hypothetical implementation.
>> The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they
>> are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected
>> by the various policy development processes.
>> Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy
>> themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the
>> meetings.
>> Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that
>> three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of
>> participation beyond open mikes.
>> But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel.
>> It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as
>> system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*.
>> In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly
>> elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big
>> registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the
>> stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval.
>> Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that.
>> * That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for
>> multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or
>> so ago.
>>   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618 <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618>
>>    Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto,
>>    J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in
>>    multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become
>>    legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a
>>    democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence
>>    that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder
>>    situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who
>>    would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil
>>    society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all
>>    public elections and not only write the laws but pass them,
>>    enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration
>>    that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the
>>    court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum
>>    requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force
>>    inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a
>>    coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be
>>    lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March
>>    2014}}
>> -- 
>>        -Barry Shein
>> Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com <mailto:bzs at TheWorld.com>             | http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/>
>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
>> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20180716/bbb038fb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list