<!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 text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Bertrand,<br>
<br>
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 05:49 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=S07CTs92zSeZxywE+8dda47XAzfROBDrx6jcq@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear all,<br>
<br>
Avri has triggered an interesting thread that is a recurring discussion
among us. <br>
<br>
As a general input, I sense that there is strong reluctance towards the
expression multistakeholderism and apparently less regarding other,
like multistakeholder processes, multistakeholder model or
multistakeholder approach. <br>
<br>
I'd like to understand a bit better the rationale. Is it because the
use of "ism" seems to imply a sort of achieved model, a general theory,
or a movement ? Let's leave aside for the moment the rest of the
discussion on the value (or dangers) of the MS approach to understand
better what people feel is behind the use of an "ism" termination. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
My main problem with the ism is as follows. 'Multistakeholder
participation' has for long been a valid concept in democratic
practice, especially in terms of gathering perspectives around
specialized issues ( and generally not so much in deciding larger/
broader/ overall public interest issues where 'public interest' actors
are mostly engaged)), and works clearly within, and in subordination
to, traditional (representative) democratic institution and political
processes. <br>
<br>
Multistakeholderism, however, seems to be a term which has taken hold
largely at the global policy level, where there is admittedly a huge
political vacuum, and whereby, and Avri expressly says it,
multistakeholderism is considered not as just a process leading to, or
inputting into, policy making, but as a process of policy making itself
(or, as I like to put, of 'not making policy'). <br>
<br>
In that sense, it seeks to do away with any need for moving towards
democratic political processes at the global level as well (and this
has manifested at the global IG scene) which are based on equality of
people and of groups of people within constitutional frameworks. What
is clearly different <b>in any such democratic global process/
institution</b> vis a vis multistakeholderism is that in the former<b>
only natural human beings and their natural collectives are recognized
entities with rights and equality, and legal entities like corporates
are not accepted to be at the same level. MSism however tends to do
that. This is the single biggest issue with MSism,</b> and to go any
further with this discussion, it is my sincere opinion, that we need to
focus on this single issue. You solve this issue for me, I will accept
MSism :). <br>
<br>
However, in my numerous discussion on MSism, those who uphold MSism
generally tend to completely bypass/ ignore/ minimize this issue, which
for me, and most others having suspicions about MSism, is THE central
issue. This especially so because when we look at the global scene the
strongest power shifts taking place today are towards mega-corps, who
seen to further benefit the most from MSism.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=S07CTs92zSeZxywE+8dda47XAzfROBDrx6jcq@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
Anriettte has formulated a valid concern in that respect :<br>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">- the notion of multi-stakeholderism
is often associated with a crude<br>
'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil<br>
society, government and business.<br>
- this obscures diversity within each of those groups<br>
- and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy<br>
way to brand processes as being democratic<br>
</div>
<br>
That concern I completely share (as my recurrent criticism of the
"siloed" process in ICANN demonstrates). But is there something else
regarding the use of an "ism" termination ?<br>
<br>
In any case, I personally have always felt that multistakeholderism is
an ugly word in itself and much prefer multi-stakeholder governance or
multistakeholder processes. But it is hard to find a better word (been
struggling with that for long), even if I'm sure it is merely
transitory (like "horseless carriages" before we labeled them
"automobiles")<br>
<br>
As a matter of fact, <b>the term Governance, on its own, could be
sufficient</b>. The WSIS has provided the now famous definition of
Internet Governance that I usually summarize as follows : "IG is the
multistakeholder development and application of shared regimes that
shape the evolution and use of the Internet". Here, Multi-stakeholder
stands for "by governments, civil society and the private sector, in
their respective roles". <br>
<br>
As the discussions in the IGF demonstrate, the major challenge to
define the desired "Governance Framework" is <b>to clarify the
"respective roles" beyond the restrictive (and siloed) interpretation
of the famous Article 35 or the Tunis Agenda</b>. Isn't it what this
discussion about multistakeholderism is all about ? Not about which
category of stakeholders is best, more legitimate, or more powerful,
but how to ensure full participation, rules of engagement,
representation of all viewpoints and clear and transparent processes. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand<br>
<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>