<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Dear Bertrand<br>
<br>
As always your response is so engaging, and so full of ideas, that I
cant but engage :). So, sorry for another email. I will respond in 3-4
parts since there are so many different issues you raise.<br>
<br>
Let me first refocus on the issue that I raised in my email. I am <b>not
against MS-ism in the democratic governance framework</b>. Rather to
the contrary, I am very much involved with such MS-ism it at all levels
that my organization works. I am against what I call as <b>neolib
MS-ism or post-democratic MS-ism</b>. <br>
<br>
In this relation I speak of the role of big business organized
principally on share capital, which is increasingly and in systematic
ways being made more and more fluid and easily transferable (in which
process ICTs have an important role, but that is a different story) and
thus increasingly being divorced from human closeness and thus from
human qualities. This is very well known in economic theories/
literature. Shareholders trade shares, almost always, solely on their
dividend earning capacity and potential, and companies are run to keep
share values high.<br>
<br>
You seem to agree to this when you say the following<br>
<br>
</font>>I agree that today, corporate governance is too often about
responsibility to
shareholders only, as if companies >were mere financial black-boxes,
and
people should only care about how much money is put in and how much
>comes out. The current stock-market driven
perception of corporations and the related social pressures are a
>disgrace to the spirit of entrepreneurship.<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
I am dealing with things as they exist - which part you seem to agree
with - and not as you or others may idealise them. As long as big
business indeed is organised in this manner - and all the evidence
points to the direction that it is increasingly even more organized in
this manner (do you have any evidence to the contrary) - I dont see why
they should have a seat at policy making table. The fact that their
resources are many times more than any other actor on the table makes
them able to skew any ostensibly 'open' process even more to their
advantage further vitiates the processes of mutlistakeholderism, as it
is often practiced. I can give any number of examples of this, at
global - including IG related, and national levels. <br>
<br>
A very large part of civil society, i may even say the major part in
developing countries at least, see MS-ism with suspicion for this
reason. </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Correspondingly,
I find the silences on this issue when MSism is discussed in IG spaces,
including on this list, very problematic. <br>
<br>
As governments - including democratically elected ones - need always to
be complemented with elements of deepening democracy, participation,
openness, transparency, stakeholder consultation/ participation,
constitutional and legal systems, judiciary etc, MS talk need always be
accompanied by talk of legitimacy of big business with remote/ fluid/
'inhuman' ownership (and <b>not the immediately and directly
implicated private players/ enterpreneurs</b>) at policy tables, the
manner in which they easily dominate heavily, and very often scuttle
legitimate collective political processes, the corresponding
requirement for ever present and ever active counter -measures,
assessment of whether such measures are in fact working etc etc. <br>
<br>
In so far this is not done - as the deep silences on these issues in IG
spaces and this list testifies - one would, if unwittingly, only be
playing the game of, and controlled by, the big business. </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">And big business is right now
playing big games, especially at the global levels, and planning even
bigger ones. </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This is
what I call as neolib MS-ism and post-democratic MS-ism. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:954259bd1002260938n6a8c834bvd999e7aef3a3d51a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
I'm glad to see a high level of awareness and support on this list
regarding E. Ostrom's work. Some comments inline (another long post,
sorry :-).<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Parminder <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Bertrand<br>
<br>
Now if Multistakeholderism is Elinor Ostrom style commons management,
can I please enlist as its enthusiastic supporter :)<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
As Françoise Massit-Follea reminded us, E. Ostrom's key 7 fundamental
building blocks for Common Pool Resources Governance Frameworks (8 if
you take into account the possibility of "nested" regimes) are in my
view extremely adaptable to many issues we are dealing with here,
particularly the management of critical Internet resources. <br>
<br>
I actually have been in contact with Elinor Ostrom no later than last
week in the context of the upcoming Transparency and Accountability AoC
review of ICANN and she explicitly confirmed that "<span
style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Yes,
the internet domain name system could be productively thought of as a
CPR." <br>
<br>
</span></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
But the sad fact is that MS-ism which we experience and are discussing
is not it at all anything close to commons style management- rather
more often quite to the contrary. <br>
<br>
Let me give you a very handy example. Try proposing any commons
management stuff for the IGF program and see where it goes in the MAG -
the multistakeholder body. You may know that open source, open content,
A2K, community networks (also in the last MAG meeting) and such topics
have fared very badly in such MS environments. The whole basis,
principles
and practises of commons management are very different. I dont think it
is at all fair to present high policy level MS-ism as we experience
around us today in terms of such commons management.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
As indicated above, the CPR approach being very appropriate for the CIR
topic, it could easily be introduced in the program. I believe in
particular that a workshop would be very appropriate in Vilnius on a
theme like : <br>
<br>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>"The Domain Name System as Common
Pool Resource (CPR) : </b><br>
<b>what consequences for its governance framework ?"</b><br>
</div>
<br>
It would clearly bring new perspectives in a key debate that people are
now ready to have seriously. If people on this list want to take the
initiative to organize it (or a similar title), count me in, Id be very
happy to contribute. <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <br>
<br>
I took a look at Ostrom's framework of commons resource management
forwarded by Massit. The very first point deals with 'exclusion', and
she must have had a very ood reason to do it.<br>
<br>
</font><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">'Clearly defined boundaries
(effective exclusion of external unentitled parties)'<br>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
The notion of "exclusion" or "defined parties" is very important and I
would relate it to the notion of "relevant stakeholders" discussed in a
previous post. As mentioned earlier, Multi-stakeholder Governance is
neither about siloed "stakeholder groups" (the dialogue space must be
unique, even if various groups form to prepare discussions), nor about
just organized entities (per Karl's remarks : individuals must not be
excluded in principle). <br>
<br>
If, as I believe, MSG is based on "the right for any actor or
individual to participate, in an appropriate manner, in the governance
mechanisms dealing with issues they have a stake in or are impacted
by", then E. Ostrom criteria of defined boundaries is respected. The
"appropriate manner" in which the different actors participate should
correspond in some ways to the stake they have in the issue. One could
even envisage that there also is a duty to participate for actors who
have an impact on an issue, even if they do not spontaneously want to
(topic example here in our domain is large social networks,
conspicuously absent from the IGF).<br>
<br>
Of course, the precise modalities need to be more clearly defined. But
the fundamental affirmation in the first CPR governance principle is
that governance frameworks work well if there is a sufficient
delineation of who belongs to an "Action Situation" and who does not.
The challenge is to make sure that there are no free riders (people who
should be involved and be subjects to the collective rules of
"appropriation and provision" but try to stay out to maximize their
gains), no disenfranchised (actors who should be taken into account but
are not invited), but also no useless participants (who have no direct
or indirect stake). <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Is it then that a shareholder (and any proxy of his 'interests') from
hundreds/ thousands of miles away, who most likely doesnt even fully
know where and what for exactly his money is invested, is to be
excluded from
'governance mechanisms'. That is great. This makes the MS framework -
if
still MS it is - very acceptable to me.</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
I am afraid a bit of anticapitalist rethoric is carrying you further
than you want. First of all, because you lump in the same basket the
predatory practices of heartless financial vultures (they do exist) and
the perfectly fine, useful and necessary mechanisms through which
companies do get the money they need to provide their services. You
can't seriously be treating them in the same way. <br>
<br>
Second, because the multi-stakeholder philosophy, if you accept to give
it some credit, applies potentially as a governance paradigm at
multiple levels, in a nested manner. Nothing prevents you from using
this lever towards companies themselves, to encourage/press/force them
to include their "relevant stakeholders" (customers, employees,
providers, but also governments, general citizens, etc...) in their
decision-making processes. Isn't it what trade unions or NGO activists
are asking in the first place. Your discarding a tool that potentially
works in your favor is surprising. <br>
<br>
A topical example here is the discussion we had in the EuroDiG last
year and in the workshop on "Governance of Social Media" in Sharm
regarding the importance of the <b>large social media sites'</b> <b>"Terms
of Service"</b>, that basically serve as "the law of the space" (for
instance the Facebook or YouTube Terms of Service clearly define most
of what you can and cannot do on this "virtual territory" (ie as long
as you are within the "frontiers" of the domain name - that is : on the
closed space of the site). <br>
<br>
A multi-stakeholder approach here would point towards such large sites
associating their users, and maybe other actors, in the refinement of
these rules instead of drafting them as corporate internal stuff and
having afterwards to back off because of their customers' (or political
actors') reactions. Community sites like ebay, facebook and others are
moving - albeit slowly - in that direction. <br>
<br>
I had a very interesting exchange in Sharm with the Prosecutor for the
State of Sao Paolo who was leading the case regarding Orkut. He was
very open to the idea for instance of establishing, inside such social
sites, multi-stakeholder advisory groups (MAGs !) composed of
representatives from law enforcement agencies, civil rights NGOs,
users, etc... who would assist the company in the treatment of delicate
cases of "notice and take down" regarding user-posted content. <br>
<br>
To come back to the point further above, I agree that today, corporate
governance is too often about responsibility to
shareholders only, as if companies were mere financial black-boxes, and
people should only care about how much money is put in and how much
comes out. The current stock-market driven
perception of corporations and the related social pressures are a
disgrace to the spirit of entrepreneurship. And yes, entrepreneur is a
french word :-)<br>
<br>
As a former successful entrepreneur, I can testify that the rationale
for creating a company is not only financial, but mostly to do
something you find exciting, provide a service you think people need or
invent a completely new activity. <br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> But first let me ask you, does
this principle work to exclude large businesses organised over global
share capital from MS systems, since the interests of such share
capital has no real, embedded and 'live' interest in any 'issue' at
all, which seems to be the first requirement for participaiton in the
Ostrom's framework? If so, we are on the same page. I
convert to being a full supporter of MSism.<br>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
Sorry, you lose me here. If you have read E. Ostrom's analysis of water
systems in various regions, you know that water companies were full
stakeholders in the corresponding CPR systems regarding the water
basins. If companies have what she describes as "appropriator rights"
(ie : are allowed to pump), don't you think that they have an
"embedded, live interest" in the preservation of the water pool ? <br>
<br>
If a large fishing company (maybe with international capital) has
fishing rights in a zone or for a specific type of fish, don't you
think they have an "embedded, live" interest in the long-term
preservation of the fish pool ? <br>
<br>
Finally, do you really prefer the government cartel mechanism that
rules oil resources, to a global governance system for oil resources
that would include all actors, including oil companies, to ensure
long-term sustainability, and more stable prices that do not harm
developing countries ? Let's remember that a significant part of the
debt burden of africa is an indirect result of the oil shocks that
forced them to borrow heavily in order to develop exports that could
cover the higher price of oil.<br>
<br>
So, instead of considering that by definition business is the devil
that should in any case be excluded from any sort of governance
mechanism, why not consider that MS mechanisms can in fact re-empower
various actors, including governments, citizens and civil society, to
make sure that corporations do not escape their responsibilities.<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Also, Ostrom's system has a strong place for commonly evolved rules. I
have never been able to understand how an MS system - the kinds that
get spoken of on this list - ever develops any rules at all. Would also
like to know more in this regard.<br>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
I have no perfect answer. However, the two embryonic, experimental,
tentative efforts that the IGF and ICANN represent are in my view the
two laboratories for discovering how this can be done. <br>
<br>
I've repeatedly said that the <b>IGF's outcome is for a large part its
format</b> : an experiment in MS dialogue and MS interaction. It does
not produce rules yet, but in E. Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and
Development Framework (IAD), her "Grammar of institutions" helps define
a unifying syntax (ADICO) for rules, norms and strategies. Without
delving too much in detail at the moment, my understanding is that the
IGF currently allows actors to synchronise strategies and better avoid
prisoner's dilemma type of situations. If the IGF moves forward in time
and helps shape recommendations, this corresponds to the category of
norms in the AICO framework (prescriptions without sanctions). The
difference between a norm and a rule in this approach is the so-called
OR ELSE (ie : what happens if the collective norm is not respected
:punition, and enforcement thereof).<br>
<br>
It is not the purpose of the IGF to get to any enforcement capacity or
to develop rules. But ICANN, in a very limited domain, is one of the
first experiments of a multi-stakeholder international Agency (even
potential regulator for the "semantic spectrum") with some power to
sanction (even if it does not use it as it should). this organization,
with all its faults, is indeed faced with the obligation to design
decision-making procedures and rule-enforcement mechanisms.<br>
<br>
Rather than throwing away the very concept of multi-stakeholder
governance - the introduction of which in a UN summit declaration the
IGC should actually consider as its own major success - there is much
more to gain in trying to build on the fragile experiments to move
towards whatever future governance framework is needed. <br>
<br>
Hope this helps<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font color="#888888">
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
</font></font></span>
<div>
<div class="h5"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Dear all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
An important element in this debate would be to introduce the
intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in
Economics 2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their
corresponding governance mechanisms.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the
commons" paper is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we call
stakeholders) can develop common governance frameworks for the
management of common resources.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the
spirit is clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems as
between state regulation of the commons and privatization/market
mechanisms. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all
participants in this discussion to read "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Commons-Evolution-Institutions-Collective/dp/0521405998/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267101669&sr=1-3"
target="_blank">Governing
the Commons</a>" and "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Institutional-Diversity-Elinor-Ostrom/dp/0691122385/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267101721&sr=1-1"
target="_blank">Understanding
Institutional Diversity</a>", two of her seminal books on this issue. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>More on that later when I have thee time.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bertrand<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Avri
Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@psg.com" target="_blank">avri@psg.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">hi,<br>
<br>
I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of possible
panaceas, for those are but classes of snake oil that are meant to cure
all ills. And Multistakeholder governance (MSG - i think of MS as
multiple sclerosis) does not belong in the category.<br>
<br>
I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself and as a
stage in the evolving development of governance systems. It represents
progress over the nation-state, bi and multi-lateral modalities. It
also moves us beyond the pure top down or pure bottom up models. In
its best form it allows for persons, both natural and otherwise, to
form into self regulated interest and affinity groupings and allows
them, as members of these groups, and with their individual voices, to
participate as peers in the critical governance activities, including
talk, capacity building, action, regulation and enforcement.<br>
<br>
I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes this
important stage in governance development. I worry mostly that this
diminution plays into the hands of those who want to remain in, and
bolster the legitimacy of, the older variants of the Westfalian
military-industrial sovereign state - whether this is their intention
or not.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
a.<br>
</font>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
><br>
>> One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently
articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of
collective governance. It drastically overstates the capabilities and
scope of global governance and pushes forward participation as the
answer to everything.<br>
><br>
> Who does this and where?<br>
> The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending
evaluation of the IGF, not as a panacea per se.<br>
><br>
>> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can
all agree and solve all problems.<br>
><br>
> Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the
implications of a forum without binding decision-making capacity here.<br>
><br>
> But that it isn't consistent with what we know<br>
>> about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In
order to be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I
should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The
whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield
groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by others.<br>
><br>
> With regard to free expression perhaps although free expression
needs rules as well in order to work. Even this list has rules
specifying limits of unwanted behavior.<br>
><br>
> jeanette<br>
>> --MM<br>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com"
target="_blank">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>]<br>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM<br>
>> *To:* <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>;
Jeanette Hofmann<br>
>> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang<br>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with
Bertrand<br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>> Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are<br>
>> ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and
"multi-stakeholders"<br>
>> that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous
exchanges with<br>
>> Karl Auerbach on this topic.<br>
>> "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or
four, or<br>
>> five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies :
governments,<br>
>> civil society, business (plus technical community, and
IGOs).<br>
>> According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance
looks a<br>
>> little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization)
with the<br>
>> three constituencies of governments, employers and trade
unions,<br>
>> each in their respective structures. in a certain way,
ICANN is<br>
>> still structured very much in this way, with what I have
often<br>
>> described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent
real<br>
>> interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders"
and<br>
>> "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished :<br>
>> "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion.
"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in<br>
>> particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only*
(ie<br>
>> incorporated structures, be they public authorities,
corporations or<br>
>> NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the
participation of<br>
>> individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not
need to<br>
>> be the case and that individuals should have the
possibility to<br>
>> participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder<br>
>> governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very
useful<br>
>> example with its open registration policy that allows<br>
>> individuals. Important established structures (governments,<br>
>> businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and
decision-making<br>
>> processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too.
The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the<br>
>> decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such<br>
>> individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily
groups of<br>
>> people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be
required<br>
>> to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence
the<br>
>> classical question : but who do they really represent ? is
moot, and<br>
>> akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any
person with<br>
>> something to contribute should be allowed to do so because
it<br>
>> informs the processes and the general understanding of an
issue. The<br>
>> purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most
comprehensive<br>
>> manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors
who have a<br>
>> stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white
man from<br>
>> a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of
the<br>
>> challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to
ensure<br>
>> that this perspective is taken into account in the
discussions even<br>
>> if no "representative" from such communities is present.
However,<br>
>> actual representatives of the different interests are
needed in the<br>
>> decision-making phase that follows, and established
institutions and<br>
>> structures may have a specific role to play here. .<br>
>> This leads to a better understanding of
"multi-stakeholderism". In<br>
>> this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision,
up to<br>
>> the last bit of the paragraph :<br>
>> MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion
from purely<br>
>> intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms
of global<br>
>> governance. In this progression, we need to have a
clearer idea<br>
>> of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world
of<br>
>> perfect global governance the artificial division of
society<br>
>> into "estates" such as "government, business and civil
society"<br>
>> no longer exists; it is the individual that matters.
Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic<br>
>> form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be
artificially<br>
>> divided into separate estates that are too rigid and
prevent their<br>
>> interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory
Group for<br>
>> the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And
yes,<br>
>> governance should be based on the right for any actor,
including<br>
>> individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the<br>
>> governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a
stake in<br>
>> (is impacted by or concerned with). However,
multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as<br>
>> necessarily meaning interaction between separate
stakeholder groups,<br>
>> each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later
on.<br>
>> Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global
governance<br>
>> is the generalization at the international level of the
kind of<br>
>> representative democracy that already reaches some limits
at lower<br>
>> scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World
President<br>
>> or even Parliament is not the solution.<br>
>> This is why we must consider the different structures or
groups that<br>
>> individuals participate in as vectors of the representation
of their<br>
>> diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes
in an<br>
>> issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from
having its<br>
>> different perspectives carried forward in international
discussions<br>
>> by a diversity of actors. To take the example of
environmental<br>
>> issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized
versus<br>
>> others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and
therefore<br>
>> want their government to actively defend their rights. But
conscious<br>
>> of the future challenges for their family or the planet as
a whole,<br>
>> they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions
to exert<br>
>> some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as
maybe the<br>
>> employees of companies in an industry that has to support an<br>
>> important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the
global<br>
>> regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said
company or<br>
>> its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may
want to<br>
>> ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and<br>
>> scientific analysis, which requests expert participation.
Etc... On<br>
>> such global topics, individuals have in fact several<br>
>> stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of
them. A<br>
>> major one, but only one of them, as the global public
interest is<br>
>> not the mere aggregation of national public interests.
In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including<br>
>> governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our
understanding<br>
>> of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo
approach,<br>
>> and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all
stakeholders<br>
>> can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say<br>
>> "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on
specific<br>
>> issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the
"respective<br>
>> roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according
to the<br>
>> issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.
This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting,<br>
>> issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making<br>
>> (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation
(agency,<br>
>> monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two
major<br>
>> laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this
list, as<br>
>> exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not
the main<br>
>> one, where the political theory discussion can actually
take place. I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best<br>
>> Bertrand<br>
>> PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal
basis.<br>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu"
target="_blank">jeanette@wzb.eu</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu" target="_blank">jeanette@wzb.eu</a>>>
wrote:<br>
>> Second, We<br>
>> need to stop habitually using
"multi-stakeholderism" as our<br>
>> label for<br>
>> good governance and appropriate institutions;<br>
>> I don't understand why.<br>
>> MS is at best a<br>
>> transitional phase implying a motion from purely<br>
>> intergovernmental<br>
>> toward a more open, democratic forms of global
governance.<br>
>> In this<br>
>> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what
the end<br>
>> 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<br>
>> "government,<br>
>> business and civil society" no longer exists; it is
the<br>
>> individual<br>
>> that matters.<br>
>> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion
of global<br>
>> governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest
and<br>
>> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual
freedom only.<br>
>> What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic
"rules<br>
>> for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A
life in<br>
>> common that respects both, individual and collective
dimensions<br>
>> of it.<br>
>> The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate
way of<br>
>> capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said
many<br>
>> times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals
(who<br>
>> interact in the form of contracts with each other?)
looks like<br>
>> an impoverished notion of regulation and political
rule-making<br>
>> to me.<br>
>> jeanette<br>
>> jea<br>
>> In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers<br>
>> the double standard at work in the MS discourse,
noting how<br>
>> MS is<br>
>> used to fend off certain political actors in this
context<br>
>> but somehow<br>
>> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is
about<br>
>> process but<br>
>> not substance, and policy substance is what matters
ultimately.<br>
>> ________________________________________ From:
Parminder<br>
>> [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>]
Sent: Sunday, February<br>
>> 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>;
Jeremy<br>
>> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams
Subject: Re:<br>
>> [governance]<br>
>> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing<br>
>> Jeanette and Bertrand,<br>
>> First of all I must apologize that I did not read
the open<br>
>> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the
governments of<br>
>> developed<br>
>> countries who spoke on the issue did mention
MS-ism. I must have<br>
>> forgotten that part from their interventions
because there<br>
>> principal<br>
>> point was procedural which I found particularly
forceful.<br>
>> And I am<br>
>> sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals
that<br>
>> would be<br>
>> because of this procedural part.<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<br>
>> motivation but<br>
>> the tactical aspects of their intervention that I
spoke<br>
>> about, I can<br>
>> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of
'analysis of<br>
>> 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<br>
>> 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<br>
>> stage,<br>
>> and developing countries correspondingly more
closed. One<br>
>> may ask in<br>
>> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such
secrecy.<br>
>> Why not<br>
>> have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting
and<br>
>> negotiations?<br>
>> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed<br>
>> currently? And<br>
>> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are
more-NGO<br>
>> involvement<br>
>> friendly and not developed countries?<br>
>> Where support for multistakeholderism starts and
where it<br>
>> ends is,<br>
>> therefore, a question of deep political
motivations. I<br>
>> understand<br>
>> that developed countries want, at this stage, to
limit<br>
>> possibilities<br>
>> for more democratic global policy forums on IG
issues<br>
>> because control<br>
>> over the techno-social infrastructure of the
Internet, along<br>
>> with<br>
>> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy
for global<br>
>> domination. This works well with promoting of a
weak IGF<br>
>> which is<br>
>> little more than an annual conference on IG, and
which has<br>
>> this great<br>
>> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device
-<br>
>> letting off<br>
>> excess steam vis a vis desires for political
participation<br>
>> in shaping<br>
>> the emergent techno-social infrastructure.
Unfortunately<br>
>> developing<br>
>> countries mostly have not woken up to the global<br>
>> eco-socio-political<br>
>> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of
statist<br>
>> controls<br>
>> within their own territories.<br>
>> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it
is. Many<br>
>> developing countries want the IGF to have more<br>
>> substantive<br>
>> role in global IG regimes, along with a specific
Internet<br>
>> policy<br>
>> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant
to be the<br>
>> place<br>
>> holder. Developed countries seem not interested
in<br>
>> furthering<br>
>> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the
technical community<br>
>> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many
among civil<br>
>> society<br>
>> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The
latter<br>
>> two also<br>
>> have often supported the case for weak, annual
conference,<br>
>> nature of<br>
>> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that<br>
>> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global<br>
>> Internet policy<br>
>> making, and its effectiveness can only be measured
by the<br>
>> extent to<br>
>> which it does so.<br>
>> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate
to IGF<br>
>> to make<br>
>> recommendations where necessary.<br>
>> I make the above analysis because I do not agree
with the<br>
>> following<br>
>> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the
key substantive<br>
>> issue in the email.<br>
>> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the
desirability<br>
>> of the<br>
>> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the
UN SG<br>
>> should mainly<br>
>> revolve around the >question : continuation
Yes or No ?<br>
>> and not get<br>
>> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the<br>
>> administrative and<br>
>> operational organization of the Forum.<br>
>> In this context, it would be inappropriate for
the UN<br>
>> General<br>
>> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only
bodies)<br>
>> to discuss<br>
>> more than the Yes or >No question.<br>
>> Section 74 of TA reads<br>
>> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a
range of<br>
>> options<br>
>> for the convening of the Forum ..........'<br>
>> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and
decentralized<br>
>> structure that would be subject to periodic review".<br>
>> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly
not<br>
>> renegotiate<br>
>> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and
operational<br>
>> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to
review and<br>
>> change.<br>
>> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of
changes<br>
>> (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<br>
>> agenda,<br>
>> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA,
better and more<br>
>> effective connections to forums where substantive
Internet<br>
>> policy is<br>
>> made, stable public funding to ensure its
neutrality etc).<br>
>> I also think that to ensure that progressive forces
are not<br>
>> able to<br>
>> get together to demand the kind of changes that are
needed<br>
>> to enable<br>
>> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really<br>
>> effective, there<br>
>> is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in
the "IGF<br>
>> review<br>
>> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over
the IGF'<br>
>> 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<br>
>> background, in<br>
>> fact, into the oblivion.<br>
>> Parminder<br>
>> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all,<br>
>> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke
were not<br>
>> thinking<br>
>> of multistakeholderism but underlying their
objections was a<br>
>> different politics. They suspect China (along with
some<br>
>> others) is up<br>
>> to some games here, and more open consideration of
UN SG's<br>
>> report<br>
>> give them a better chance to put their views in more<br>
>> 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<br>
>> are more<br>
>> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa.
So, since<br>
>> weakening<br>
>> MS process was not what the government who spoke at
the<br>
>> consultations<br>
>> really spoke about, and all the concerned actors
know this,<br>
>> our first<br>
>> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really
spoke<br>
>> about the<br>
>> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going
through CSTD,<br>
>> that is<br>
>> all.<br>
>> I must correct this : preserving the
multi-stakeholder spirit of<br>
>> discussions was clearly in the minds of most
governments who<br>
>> spoke in<br>
>> Geneva to support having the report presented to
the CSTD.<br>
>> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an
Internet<br>
>> Governance forum came principally from the
discussions of<br>
>> the WGIG,<br>
>> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if
the<br>
>> mandate of<br>
>> the IGF was included in a document ultimately
signed by<br>
>> governments<br>
>> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have
played an<br>
>> important<br>
>> role in its definition - the functioning of the
Forum itself<br>
>> has been<br>
>> organized since its inception by a
multi-stakeholder process<br>
>> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis
Agenda<br>
>> mentions<br>
>> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the<br>
>> recommendations of<br>
>> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question
:<br>
>> continuation<br>
>> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of
the<br>
>> mandate or the<br>
>> administrative and operational organization of the
Forum.<br>
>> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the
UN General<br>
>> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only
bodies) to<br>
>> 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.<br>
>> The CSTD,<br>
>> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of
WSIS, is<br>
>> 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<br>
>> actors on how<br>
>> to make the IGF even better without changing its
fundamental<br>
>> multi-stakehoder nature.<br>
>> The governments who have spoken have indeed done so
in order to<br>
>> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF.<br>
>> Best<br>
>> Bertrand<br>
>> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué<br>
>> 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<br>
>> 88 33 32<br>
>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les
hommes"<br>
>> Antoine de<br>
>> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for
humans than<br>
>> uniting<br>
>> humans")<br>
>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> To be removed from the list, send any<br>
>> message to: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
>> Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br>
>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
>> Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>> -- ____________________<br>
>> Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
>> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special
Envoy for<br>
>> the Information Society<br>
>> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French
Ministry of<br>
>> Foreign and European Affairs<br>
>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes"
Antoine de<br>
>> Saint Exupéry<br>
>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting
humans")<br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>> To be removed from the list, send any message
to:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>
</div>
<div>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
</div>
<div>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>