<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">
<DIV>Wolgang,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You bring us to the base camp to see the mountain top but leave with the map still in your hip pocket. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The door is open. It would be best if we saw the frame of that door filled with participants. My countrymen are suffering these days from a great depression -- Our economy is just a symptom and only a secondary infection. The depression I speak of is lack of accountability. No not corporate, individual. We have been steadily sinking into a dispair of non-demanding or standing for anything. We have grown delighted in our things and dissolusioned in our processes. I fear much of our world is suffering from the same malaise. What we must concentrate on here is in the doing of the thing and not the thing itself. We must somehow find a way to empower people. Not respect them because they are human, but incentivize them to respect themselves and whatever contribution they may make. Democracy and Multistakeholderism only flourish with an active and positve desire to be a part of the
process.<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; David Allen <David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu>; governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tue, August 17, 2010 1:01:07 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> AW: [governance] multistakeholderism<BR></FONT><BR>Dear David<BR><BR>thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. <BR><BR>Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad
government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder
approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach. <BR><BR>Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. <BR><BR>We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad
if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. <BR><BR>BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-)))<BR><BR>Wolfgang<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>Von: David Allen [mailto:<A href="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu">David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu</A>]<BR>Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52<BR>An: <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism<BR><BR><BR><BR>> I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit <BR>> playing with words<BR><BR>This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That <BR>author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions <BR>to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality <BR>exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care <BR>to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and <BR>evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis.<BR><BR>MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try <BR>and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether <BR>that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is <BR>the starting
point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the <BR>core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS <BR>some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also <BR>created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing <BR>which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for <BR>that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'?<BR><BR>There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much <BR>larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for <BR>expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global <BR>polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed <BR>a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new <BR>forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states <BR>per se and of the elected and representative forms of government
so <BR>far in place.<BR><BR>As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But <BR>people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be <BR>turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end <BR>effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully-<BR>worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of <BR>governance.<BR><BR>This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might <BR>indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, <BR>realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what <BR>forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out?<BR><BR>Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as <BR>here.<BR><BR>David<BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">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 rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For all list information and functions, see:<BR> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<BR><BR>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">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
rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">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 rel=nofollow>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR><BR>Translate this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A></DIV></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>