Dear all,<div><br></div><div>Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic.</div>
<div><br></div><div>"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) <b>"stakeholder groups"</b> or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. </div>
<div><br></div><div>"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning i<b>nstitutional organizations only</b> (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. .</div>
<div><br></div><div>This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph :</div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">
MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. </blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with). </div>
<div><br></div><div>However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests. </div>
<div><br></div><div>In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. </div>
<div><br></div><div>This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I hope this helps move the discussion forward. </div><div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br></div><div>Bertrand</div><div><br></div><div>PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis.</div>
<div> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">jeanette@wzb.eu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
Second, We<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for<br>
good governance and appropriate institutions; <br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I don't understand why.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
MS is at best a<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental<br>
toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this<br>
progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is<br>
- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the<br>
artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government,<br>
business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual<br>
that matters. <br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it.<br>
The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me.<br>
jeanette<br>
<br>
jea<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div></div><div class="h5">
the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is<br>
used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow<br>
does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but<br>
not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately.<br>
<br>
________________________________________ From: Parminder<br>
[<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Jeremy<br>
Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance]<br>
REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing<br>
<br>
Jeanette and Bertrand,<br>
<br>
First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open<br>
consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed<br>
countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have<br>
forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal<br>
point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am<br>
sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be<br>
because of this procedural part.<br>
<br>
However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my<br>
'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned<br>
interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but<br>
the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can<br>
hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'.<br>
Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper<br>
analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are<br>
interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder<br>
nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them<br>
'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage,<br>
and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in<br>
this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not<br>
have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations?<br>
Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And<br>
why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement<br>
friendly and not developed countries?<br>
<br>
Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is,<br>
therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand<br>
that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities<br>
for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control<br>
over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with<br>
stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global<br>
domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is<br>
little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great<br>
advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off<br>
excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping<br>
the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing<br>
countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political<br>
domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls<br>
within their own territories.<br>
<br>
Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many<br>
developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive<br>
role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy<br>
regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place<br>
holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering<br>
the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community<br>
supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society<br>
(dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also<br>
have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of<br>
IGF, with no consideration to the fact that<br>
<br>
1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy<br>
making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to<br>
which it does so.<br>
<br>
2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make<br>
recommendations where necessary.<br>
<br>
I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following<br>
assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive<br>
issue in the email.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the<br>
continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly<br>
revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get<br>
into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and<br>
operational organization of the Forum.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General<br>
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss<br>
more than the Yes or >No question.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Section 74 of TA reads<br>
<br>
"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options<br>
for the convening of the Forum ..........'<br>
<br>
and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized<br>
structure that would be subject to periodic review".<br>
<br>
Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate<br>
the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational<br>
organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change.<br>
<br>
In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it<br>
closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds<br>
(things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda,<br>
some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more<br>
effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is<br>
made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc).<br>
<br>
I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to<br>
get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable<br>
the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there<br>
is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review<br>
debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is<br>
needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and<br>
sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive<br>
changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in<br>
fact, into the oblivion.<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all,<br>
<br>
Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking<br>
of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a<br>
different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up<br>
to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report<br>
give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not<br>
that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some<br>
governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more<br>
vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening<br>
MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations<br>
really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first<br>
assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the<br>
proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is<br>
all.<br>
<br>
I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of<br>
discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in<br>
Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD.<br>
<br>
The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet<br>
Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG,<br>
which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of<br>
the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments<br>
only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important<br>
role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been<br>
organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process<br>
(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions<br>
"the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of<br>
the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation<br>
Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the<br>
administrative and operational organization of the Forum.<br>
<br>
In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General<br>
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss<br>
more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize,<br>
which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD,<br>
because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only<br>
the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for<br>
ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the<br>
possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how<br>
to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental<br>
multi-stakehoder nature.<br>
<br>
The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to<br>
preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand<br>
<br>
-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour<br>
la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information<br>
Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French<br>
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de<br>
Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting<br></div></div>
humans") ____________________________________________________________<div class="im"><br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> To be removed from the list, send any<br>
message to: <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see: <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</div></blockquote><div><div></div><div class="h5">
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>____________________<br>Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society<br>Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs<br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br><br>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<br>
</div>