<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Dear Stephanie,</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I read carefully your emails about
multistakeholder participation in policy making. I agree with
everything you say. Can it then be taken that we agree on
multistakeholder participation in policy making? (More on
agreement and different versions of multistakeholderism or MSism
later.) In fact, your points on the need for non governmental
'stakeholders' to have new formal venues of participation which
cannot easily be influenced or controlled by policy makers is
most important. Last year, I wrote <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy">a
blog</a> where I called IGF kind of structures as representing
version 3 of democracy, where new formal venues of participation
are instituted that are not ad hoc, and do not depend on the
sweet will of policy makers...</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">However, this is not what many
proponents of MSism stop at. (See for instance Avri's
submissions to NetMundial process, and several others.)They
specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for
instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil –
in 'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed
with you on your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree
to such equality of all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need
to repeat for the sake of specificity, of 'making actual public
policy decisions'. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Do you think that this is a minor
point, that need not be raised so strongly. Is the proposition
of 'equality of all stakeholders' expressed in this fashion not
a threat to democracy?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Please see IT for Change's
submission to NetMundial titled - '<font color="#000000"><font
size="3"><span style="font-style: normal"><span
style="font-weight: normal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/is-certain-kind-of-multistakeholderism-a-post-democratic-ideology-need-to-save-netmundial-outcome-documents-from-crossing-some-sacred-democratic-lines/300">Is
certain
kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic
ideology? Need to save NetMundial outcome documents
from crossing some sacred democratic lines</a>'.</span></span></font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight:
normal"> <font color="#000000"><font size="3">I am engaging
with you on this matter especially because you are in the
High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect
'equality of all stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking
point as real negotiations begin on outcome documents for
Brazil meeting.</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight:
normal"> <font color="#000000"><font size="3">Regards</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight:
normal"> <font color="#000000"><font size="3">parminder<br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-style: normal; font-weight:
normal"><font color="#000000"><font size="3"><br>
</font></font> </p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM,
Stephanie Perrin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid. One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation. One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change. Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts, etc. You need to understand world markets and world impacts. You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment. Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism. In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can. In multilateral or normal government regulation m
ak
ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing. Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players. Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked. This is documented in political science literature. My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic. There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable. When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed, stands to
be a more open and inclusive process. I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
Stephanie Perrin
PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas. It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue. I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jeanette,
The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
No civil servants, no civil society...
So who's able?
Corporate servants, corporate society..
With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
Jeanette,
All of this is really going insane.
Michael is so right
JC
Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
jeanette
Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
M
-----Original Message-----
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a> [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
education policy making, and so on...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
jeanette
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
embracing here.
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
authority and delegated authority. These are concepts and ideas that
are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
public administration.
A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
representatives .
(At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
manner whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
this system of global public policies still works.)
As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
definitions regarding public policy etc and then find entry points
for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
what is happening now.
Do note that the currently fashionable meme of 'equal footing' in
public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
contributing so strongly to...
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
but it is multi-stakeholder.
Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
different parts of government is represented which his important.
Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
approving/rejecting'.