<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">While we can do </font>general polito-cultural
discussions on various forms of participatory democracy as they
express at various levels in our societies, and whether MSism is
also the same thing or not, we also have certain clear political
imperatives here. And BestBits group is oriented towards outcomes
that specifically contribute to political developments or landscape
around us. This does require convergent efforts while exploring
divergent meaning and perspectives. To that extent, perhaps one, if
not 'the', core question for BB meeting's session could be as
follows<br>
<br>
When we seek that Internet governance processes, at national and
global levels, should be multistakeholder, what do we really mean -
in relatively concrete terms. This in general, but also as being
specifically situated in the current landscape of where we are with
global IG - and perhaps separately in different areas, like
technical policy processes, public policy processes, soft law, hard
law, principles development and the such....<br>
<br>
A lot of policy makers, including from the North, directly ask us,
MSism is fine, but what is it that you want in terms of
processes.... And I can assure you that what they think as limits of
MSism is quite different from what many here think.... So good to
know and talk about these things. A lot of MS related discussion has
simply happened in obscurity with regard to real meanings and
implications..<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 17 October 2013 12:38 PM,
Avri Doria wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:8D5B1703-ED69-4111-A9C3-622E16F8AC71@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
I think that one reason the form of participatory democracy we are calling multistakeholderism (MSism) is not uniform in that there are many ways in which it can be expressed.
I do not think we will find a single definition. And even if we could, even if there was just one modality for MSism, just one way to implement the multistakeholder model ,it would be something that is still in development and discovery.
But I do not beleive there is a single way to implement a multistakeholder model, and I don't beleive any existing organization has the perfect exemplar - though there may be one I don't know of either in Internet governance or some other field and though several of those still in the crucible of real life deployment attempting real world management and regulatory functions do show promise, in my opinion.
It is a relatively new trend in world history and in the development of democracy - less that few score years at the most. It is a form that I beleive is built upon the modern world's ability to communicate across cultures and to travel freely across borders.
I think as we gain more experience and do more study on the variety of multistakeholder models we will discover characteristics that all forms of the model must have.
I think the points you make below are all part of the framework for any definition. And I think there is value in trying to scope out the framework, starting with the things that no governance system that wants to call itself multistakeholder can do without.
I think your list of questions is the start of a good question set.
I also think that BestBits spending time on this is a good idea, as long as it does not try to define one form, or as long as it does not create a strawman that allows people to discount the ongoing real life efforts to develop participatory democracy in governance. If we develop a system purely for the reason of furthering people's attacks on the existing efforts at the multistakeholder model, I think it will be counterproductive, at best.
avri
Note: I would make the point that it is even harder to define civil society than it is to define MSism. but given that I self identify as a member of both civil society and the technical community, I strongly agree about the commonality of many goals.
On 16 Oct 2013, at 09:25, John Curran wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org"><jeremy@ciroap.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the agenda (particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with
respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance)
As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone is using the
term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with some
clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it were to be defined
from the civil society perspective)
In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require:
- Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common purpose?
- Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all interested parties?
- Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties?
- Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide consideration of all inputs/views?
- Respect for all participants involved?
If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term "multi-stakeholder"
(in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term
does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid set of principles
regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your present plans or goals for
the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired.
Thanks!
/John
Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via multi-stakeholder
processes (unless one credits various portions of my consciousness
with independent stakeholder status... ;-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>