<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is <a href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/wcit-lots-of-losers-but-guess-who-won/">discussed and blogged</a> there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms".<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... "<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Mike<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>