<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 2008">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 2008">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file://localhost/Users/jovan/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>735</o:Words>
<o:Characters>4193</o:Characters>
<o:Company>DiploFoundation</o:Company>
<o:Lines>34</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>8</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>5149</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span
style="font-family: Arial;">While most of the government/UN
'world' is on holidays, we are having
one of the most interesting discussions ever on this list. Is
this another
proof that IG is unique? ;) Here are a few reflections on the
David/Michael/Wolfgang
thread on IGF, multistakeholderism, etc.<br>
<br>
I would be very careful in using the argument that IG and the
IGF are unique
because of the uniqueness of the Internet. The Internet is no
longer as
'unique' (or perceived to be) as it was when Barlow was drafting
his
declaration from Davos or when we were discussing IG at the
WGIG. In the
meantime, the Internet has become 'grounded' in traditional
geography. The
formula could be: the more the Internet is anchored in
geography, the less
unique is its governance. Today, with geo-location tools
(combining convenience
and control) we are more geographically anchored than in the
'fleshware', pre-Internet
era. Once we are geo-located, governance and policy move to
'normality',
applying principles that are as old as the Code of Hammurabi. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span
style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span
style="font-family: Arial;">In addition, one has also to be
careful with the 'networked' argument
and the end of traditional hierarchy. </span><span
style="font-family: Arial;" lang="EN-US">The world maybe 'flat',
but the organisation of human society is still
hierarchical. H. Simon, Nobel Prize winner, put some serious
thinking into this
matter. Ultimately, he argued that hierarchy is inherent to
human organisation.
What makes a difference is how this hierarchy functions. Are
social elevators
free to use? Is this hierarchy organised on might or merit? Is
it controlled?<br>
<br>
Lastly, on the communication aspect.... Most of us have
contracted the
chrono-narcissism virus, arguing that our own time is unique.
Given the
excitement of the last 20 years (end of the cold war, beginning
of the
Internet) it is not surprising. Moreover, it is human to think
that we live our
short time on the globe in a unique era. The problem starts when
this argument
is overused and inflated. Like any inflation it reduces the
value of the
inflated object. People get tired of it. Even Newsweek no longer
announces
every other issue with 'revolutionary', 'brave new world', etc.
The pendulum
has moved - too far - into other direction of skepticism and
caution. Everybody
wants to find a 'Black Swan'. We have to be aware of this
significant shift
when we communicate IG/IGF stories.<br>
<br>
Paradoxically, in spite of all this, the IGF really is still
unique. What is
the uniqueness of the IGF? First, it has been a great success.
Today, when many
global policy initiatives are stuck (climate change, NPT, middle
east) the IGF
should be/is a shining example. It is successful because it did
not let policy
differences degenerate into crisis and conflict. Today, with
minor exceptions,
we can access all Internet content. There are almost 2 billion
users, with more
and more people from developing countries. Controversial issues
such as ICANN
have been handled with wisdom, and given us time to sort out
problems. The IGF
played major role in the overall IG success. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span
style="font-family: Arial;" lang="EN-US"><br>
The IGF has also started creating awareness that inclusiveness
and the
multistakeholder approach are not just ethical questions. They
are equally, if
not more, of a practical matter. The less people are engaged,
the less they
feel ownership of the global policy, the less they want to
follow it. The
limitations of current global policy are noticeable everywhere.
One of the
consequences of the failure of development policy is people
getting on the boat
sailing towards wealthier countries. An unbalanced IPR regime
makes people feel
that when they copy protected software or video they are not
doing anything
unethical. The list can continue.... In many cases the reason is
that
traditional policy-making has too narrow “a bandwidth”
(parliament - government
- diplomatic service – multilateral negotiations). It has legal,
but not
popular legitimacy. New forms that will increase the legitimacy
of
policy-making on national, regional and global levels are needed
for the practical
reasons of implementing what is agreed. Micheal's comment on
broadening
participation beyond the IGF "usual suspects" is extremely
important.
<br>
<br>
The IGF's success is shown in many low-cost but powerful
procedural
improvements. The trio fantasticus (Marilia, Ginger and
Bernard), with the
support of the IGF Secretariat, has made remote participation a
great success.
This year there will be 28 hubs worldwide, with people
discussing their local
IG issues in schools, Internet cafes, town halls. Again, without
pomp, against
skepticism, with hard work they have built something which is of
interest to
many, beyond the IG circle. For example, in September, at the
annual meeting of directors of all diplomatic academies in the
world, Marilia will present the IGF's
remote participation experience
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ifdt10.diplomacy.edu/programme">http://ifdt10.diplomacy.edu/programme</a>).<br>
<br>
The list can continue..... the IGF is in many respects relevant
and unique, but
it is not 'more' unique because of the Internet's 'uniqueness'.
What was
important in 2005 is not necessarily so any more. The world has
changed a lot over
the last 5 years and with it the </span><span
style="font-family: Arial;">raison d'être </span><span
style="font-family: Arial;" lang="EN-US">of the IGF. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span
style="font-family: Arial;" lang="EN-US"><br>
Best, Jovan <br>
</span></p>
<!--EndFragment-->
<br>
<br>
On 8/19/10 10:19 PM, David Allen wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:4AE6D7F1-639A-4BA3-9B38-EFDC0FAB0C11@post.harvard.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height: 14px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Are more votes at the table, from sectors newly
inserted around the table, desirable? practicable? Or
might we postulate the question differently (hopefully
with some further perspective):</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Do more views around the table contribute to
better outcomes? But does an attempt to formalize this –
by trying to escalate the views into votes – threaten the
prospects?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Evidence is clear that better-informed views
bring better results. And – <i>done right</i> – adding
views can be part of bringing better-informed results.
But the ‘done right’ means everything depends on
‘process:’ Exactly how are these additional views brought
to bear?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">As has also been variously noted, this – most
fundamentally important – detail, re process, so far is
effectively ‘missing in action’ from proposals on the
table.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">But power, and its distribution, is an arbiter.
As variously acknowledged, already (despite one earlier
demurral).</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">From a kings perspective the interference of a
parliament in his decisions was seen as unneeded …</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">YES , THERE IS THE NUB.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">A distant forebear, in my larger family,
reportedly signed the death warrant of a king (which
audacious act succeeded, for a time, but then the signer
had to flee …) CS holds no power of the death warrant, or
anything like coercive means.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">In fact, when we look back, we see that reaching
Phase 4 at WSIS [as outlined in the original response,
below] meant CS got a quarter of an hour – when states
instead had hours and days to present. Even in the
current moment, we see that (only) a couple individuals
from CS will be chosen to give voice, upcoming. Does the
process of choosing who ultimately speaks reflect the
views of 6 plus billion users – users are our focus,
right? (The WSIS history also included a case when the CS
position was not checked with the group, as had been
committed …)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">IGF was a vital step forward. But states, for
the larger part, have been in a listening-post mode. And
the private sector has not come out in force.
(Fortunately, IGF has come into its own, through dint of
great work, by many, so there is some institutional base
from which something might proceed.)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Nor is there evidence of the extant power
equation shifting materially.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">It is not unreasonable to imagine: If there is –
let’s put it in clear terms – overstepping, in a campaign
to move to Stage 6 (ie, to voting power), some of those
who hold the real power will not respond with a welcome.
Could the proportional blowback even reduce or eliminate
possibilities for widening the views considered?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Of course, this is a realpolitik analysis. It
does not address desirability of the more ‘revolutionary’
proposals on the table.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">But this, the normative, question has been
addressed effectively below. Perhaps the question can be
couched: Do we really want competing vectors for
‘representation’ of the user?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">How – in realistic detail – would such vectors,
particularly CS, funnel up the views of six plus billion
users? (And yes, though complexity increases,
representation is the social mechanism evolved from the
ancient past.) We can be sure that – if there ever were a
vote for that seat – the scramble for control of the
position would be beyond any imagining today. Certainly
very far beyond any CS as now existing.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Does the [new] ‘network’ save us from a
‘hierarchy’? For me anyway, this has been addressed by
(the text also inserted below):</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-size: medium;">The internet is a tool …
[b]ut … the tools do not drive the democracy …</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Not to mention that humans have been ‘networked’
for many millennia. Our social existence lies at the core
of our being (which also is almost certainly hard-wired to
be hierarchical).</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">There is a phrase, ‘technological determinism,’
intended to encourage appreciating that humans, not
machines, make outcomes. What of course is also important
is how we co-evolve with the machines and the new
capabilities they may bring.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Which can bring us back to a central question:
What are the processes by which more useful viewpoints
can be brought to the decision table?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Certainly the connectedness of the Internet tool
may extend the reach of ancient social bonds. But almost
certainly the issues will, in the end, be quintessentially
human. How do we fruitfully get more views to a table
that will ultimately meld them all into a conclusion?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">Those who propose ‘a new regime’ surely are on a
quest aimed to make our lives better. Rather than the
‘revolutionaries’ we see in the news daily, who do not
make lives better (but often much worse – and who
disappear from the scene often with ignominy), how might
these energies and commitments move us to a better place?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">What are the processes that might bring more
useful views to the decision table (one likely to be
controlled by a hierarchy of [hopefully democratic]
representatives)?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:
medium;">David</span></div>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height: 14px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Michael
Gurstein wrote:</blockquote>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height: 14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Wolfgang,</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">-----Original
Message-----</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">From:
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</span></a>] </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Sent: Thursday,
August 19, 2010 2:01 AM</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To: Michael
Gurstein; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">governance@lists.cpsr.org</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Subject: AW:
[governance] multistakeholderism</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Michael</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Thanks michael
for you long explanation. if I understand you correctly your
are in favour of a multistakeholder dialogue below the
governmental level . In your concept the balancing of the
various interests on the ground lead to a "government" at the
top of a hierarchie. And it is the duty of a "good government"
to take all stakeholders legitime interests into consideration
when they develop policies and take decisions, domestically as
well as in internaitonal bodies. If people do not like the
government they elect another government. This is okay and
this we practice in good democracies, in particular in
Denmark, since decades.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">YES</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">What works in a
"hierarchy" probably does not work in a "network". And again
the chain of representation gets longer and longer in a
complicated world where the chances that the input from the
ground ends with the correct output at the negotiaton table is
questionable.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">I AGREE WITH THE
FINAL PART OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE... THE ISSUE OF A SHIFT FROM
A "HIERARCHY" TO A "NETWORK" IS NOT VERY CLEAR TO ME (SCOPE,
APPLICATION, EVIDENCE) NOR IS WHAT CONCLUSIONS YOU WOULD DRAW
FROM THIS "SHIFT" AND WHAT BASIS YOU HAVE FOR DRAWING THESE
CONCLUSIONS.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Again, a more
practical example with regard t the forthcoming negotiations
in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA: Do you share the view that
it would be good if the Internet Community lets say from Chile
would have a chance to channel its views not only to the
career diplomat, sitting on behalf of the Chilean Foreign
Office in the 2nd Committee but would have also a more direct
channel via Chilenean or Latin American CS structures (or an
ALS/LACRALO) which could be probably much more specific in
explaining the details).</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">THIS REQUIRES
MORE EXPLANATION--WHAT ARE THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED
(TECHNICAL, NORMATIVE, DISTRIBUTIVE AND SO ON)? WHAT DO YOU
MEAN BY "MORE DIRECT CHANNEL" HERE, AND WHAT IS BEING
CHANNELED TO WHOM AND BY WHOM FOR WHAT PURPOSE, AT WHOSE
INITIATIVE, IN WHAT DECISION MAKING CONTEXT AND SO ON.
CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INSIGHT,
INDICATIONS OF POPULAR SUPPORT/DISAGREEMENT AND SO ON WOULD BE
VALUABLE TO THE OVERALL DISCUSSION AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS
(BUT REMEMBERING THAT THESE CHANNELS ARE AS OPEN TO NON-CS
FORCES AND INFLUENCES AS TO CS ONES AND WHERE THE ISSUE AT
HAND MATTERS (FOR EXAMPLE FINANCIALLY), THOSE NON-CS FORCES
ARE LIKELY TO BE BETTER ABLE TO MAKE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS THAN
IS CS.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">World gets more
complex. General solutions will not work if they do not offer
space for very differentiated "issue tailored solutions". To
get this right, you need more expertise, knowledge and
representation on the table.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">YES, THE WORLD
IS GETTING MORE COMPLEX... WHETHER WE WANT "DIFFERENTIATED
SOLUTIONS" IS ANOTHER MATTER--THE OBVIOUS ONE FOR ME IS SAY
NET NEUTRALITY. DO WE REALLY WANT ONE SOLUTION FOR THOSE ABLE
TO PAY AND ANOTHER FOR THOSE NOT ABLE TO PAY.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">THE PRIMARY
DIFFERENTIATOR IN MOST SOCIETIES IS WEALTH AND DO WE REALLY
WANT TO DEVELOP GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF
ALLOWING ONE SOLUTION FOR THE RICH AND ANOTHER FOR THE POOR?
MAYBE TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS US TO DO THAT IN NEW WAYS AND IN NEW
AREAS BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TRADITIONAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS
BEAUTIFUL TWIN THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IS WORTH PRESERVING EVEN IF
NEW WAYS OF UNDERMINING IT ARE BEING DEVELOPED AS WE SPEAK.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Certainly this
will lead to a redistribution of power and this provokes the
power struggle we see today. Who loves to share power? But
power is shifting with the complexity of issues. When
parliaments where invented in the middle ages, the kings were
not amused that somebody wnated to have a say in decision
making. From a kings perspective the interference of a
parliament in his decisions was seen as unneeded because he
had his advisers and owned all the wisdom.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">YES, THERE IS
THE NUB. DO WE AS CS PROMOTE A SHIFT IN POWER AWAY FROM "THE
PEOPLE" TO CORPORATIONS, TECHNOCRATS (EXPERTS), THE WEALTHY,
I.E. THOSE WITH THE RESOURCES AND SKILLS CAPABLE OF EXERTING
INFLUENCING (GAMING THE SYSTEM) IN OUR INTERNET ENABLED WORLD.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">I like Jefseys
concept of polycracy. As we know from Mr. Hegel and Mr.Marx,
simple things are becoming more complex if issues move to a
higher level. And the move from the industrial society (with
its representative democracy) to the information society (with
a still undefined governance model) is such a move to a higher
more complex level.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">I HAVE NO IDEA
WHAT A "polycracy" WOULD LOOK LIKE AND FROM WHAT I GATHER
NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, WITH ANY CLARITY; SO BEFORE WE MAKE
OUR COLLECTIVE LEAP OF FAITH INTO THIS MISTY NEW WORLD I THINK
IT MIGHT BE RATHER MORE USEFUL TO GIVE OUR ATTENTION TO
FIGURING OUT HOW THE TECHNO-MAGICAL PROPERTIES AND AFFORDANCES
OF THE DIGITAL WORLD--COMMUNICATIONS EVERYWHERE, UBIGUITOUS
INFORMATION ACCESS AND CONTROL, ALMOST INFINITE UNIVERSAL
MEMORY AND SO ON CAN HELP US TO DEEPEN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM
THAT WHATEVER ITS FLAWS HAS DONE RIGHT BY MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY
OTHER AND IS STILL THE UNQUESTIONED ASPIRATION OF THE VAST
NUMBERS OF THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO ITS OPPORTUNTIIES AS WELL
AS THOSE EVERYWHERE WITHOUT OTHER SOURCES OF POWER OR
OPPORTUNITY.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">BEST,</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">MIKE</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Best wishes</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">wolfgang</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;">
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">________________________________</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-size: medium;">
<blockquote type="cite">On Aug 19, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Paul
Lehto wrote:</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;">...</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;">
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">The internet
is a tool, usually for greater democracy such as in Iran,
etc. But in any case, the tools do not drive the democracy,
as seemed to be suggested in another post calling democracy
"outdated" based on the new communication patterns fostered
by the internet. If the needs or characteristics of a
technology drive democracy, then it is technology that is in
control of governance and not people.</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;">...</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">________________________________</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Von: Michael
Gurstein [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</span></a>]</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Gesendet: Mi
18.08.2010 20:23</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">An:
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><span
style="text-decoration: underline; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);">governance@lists.cpsr.org</span></a></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Betreff: RE:
[governance] multistakeholderism</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Wolfgang,</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">(I think I asked
you first... but anyway...;-)</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">This is a
bizarre theory of government you are suggesting. Government,
at least democratic governments are not (at least in
principle) "stakeholders"... They don't or at least shouldn't
have an independent "stake" in the outcomes of governance,
rather they are the crucible through which the democratic
citizenry expresses their voice as to desireable outcomes in
public policy/decision making. The citizens give individual
elected governments the right to manage the public interest on
their behalf using government public services as their agents
through regular and democratically conducted elections. The
citizens have the right to remove the mandate from those
elected governments as they choose if they don't think that
they are executing or managing the public interest
appropriately as they understand this (civics 101).</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Elected
governments have an ambition to stay in power and thus act so
as to develop and implement public policies of interest to the
various active and effective stakeholders (business, civil
society etc.) in such a way that these "stakeholders" in turn
will provide the necessary support (financial, human resource
support in elections) to allow governments to run successful
campaigns and remain in power. Thus they consult with, accept
representations from, are influenced by these various
"stakeholders" (self-interested parties) but this process does
not include transferring decision making responsibiliity to
any of those parties. (Under many circumstances this would in
fact be illegal and seen as corrupt practice.)</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">The above
sometimes gets distorted (sometimes wildly distorted) because
of the cost and complexity of running modern
elections/governments but at least that's the theory and in
reasonably well-ordered democracies things operate more or
less on that principle.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">The fact that
many are disillusioned with the practices of certain specific
(democratic) governments doesn't to my mind negate the
principles of democractic practice which seem to me to be
provide the greatest good for the greatest number overall. It
does however, suggest that in those countries where there is
concern, those with an interest in making the operations
better should develop ways of enhancing the democratic
process.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Digital tools
now provide a variety of new ways for achieving enhanced
("deepened"?) democracy as for example through facilitating
rapid communication and widespread access to information. This
in turn enhances the possibility of citizens (and thus
electors) having for example greater access to information,
means of ensuring accountability on the part of their elected
representatives and transparency of the various processes of
governmental operations and administration.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">I'm sure this
sounds incredibly simple minded to most of you folks but it is
probably worth repeating here simply as an antidote to what
appear to be some serious misunderstandings of how
(democratic) governments in principle (and to a very
considerable degree in many many instances) in fact do/should
are legally obliged to operate.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">As for ways
forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way
forward as being the establishment of some frameworks for
global governance (perhaps in specific identified areas) with
clear rules of operation/legitimacy/participation and means
for enforcement. Those rules may be (perhaps need to be)
supranational but it can't I think for reasons that should be
obvious, be left to decisions by those who (have the means and
interest) to show up and participate. The problem with with
leaving it to those who show up (and in the absence of rules)
is that those with the resources and the specific "stake" i.e.
return from the outcome will find whatever means necessary to
realize their ends and ultimately dominate the process. And
those with less of a focused "stake" (viz. the public) will
inevitably lose out. (Microsoft's apparently successful
suborning of various global/national standards setting
processes to serve their specific product promotion interests
is an obvious example.)</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Again in
response to your question, the rules going forward need to be
based on a clear recognition that the over-arching value is
support for the (global) public interest and ensuring that the
development of those rules are based on the broadest possible
and democratic inclusion into the definition of what the
public interest is in specific areas.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Best to all,</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Mike</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">-----Original
Message-----</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">From:
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</span></a>]</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Sent: Wednesday,
August 18, 2010 10:06 AM</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">governance@lists.cpsr.org</span></a>;
Michael Gurstein; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">governance@lists.cpsr.org</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Subject: AW:
[governance] multistakeholderism</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Dear Michael</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">you did not
comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between
(traditional) representative democrarcy and a new
participatiry democracy (including of more stakeholders in
policy development and decision making) is deepening democracy
or not?</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">What are the
options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms")</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">1.
One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and
makes decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not)</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">2.
Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional
deal we know when governments follow strong lobbying by
industry.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">3.
Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and
affected parties, including civil society, to the negotiation
table.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">If you have
multiple choice, what do you prefer?</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Another
questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting
in the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do
understand the issue and are immune against corruption.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Another
questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction
among the participating parties in a multistakholder model.
Such collaborative principles have to be developed (and your
are invited to participate in drafting such principles).</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">As Mawaki has
said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is
concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you
externalize conflicts which then would block sustainbale
developments. It would be stupid if one stakeholder would try
to play the role of another stakeholder (or try to
substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal
participation where different perspectives are puzzled
together to find balance solotions (which means balance of
legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and fair to
all parties.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Wolfgang</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">________________________________</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Von: Michael
Gurstein [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</span></a>]</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Gesendet: Di
17.08.2010 23:04</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">An: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><span
style="text-decoration: underline; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);">governance@lists.cpsr.org</span></a>; Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Betreff: RE:
[governance] multistakeholderism</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Wolfgang,</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">This is not
meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of
WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of
you...</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">I completely
agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying,
providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this
was a very valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I
don't understand is on what basis you think that a couple of
dozen, highly educated, self-selected, self-funded, largely
Northern European middle aged males could (and should) somehow
participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5
billion actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and
decision making concerning global Internet governance (or
anything else for that matter).</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">The fact that
these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in
Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide
a substitute for accountability, transparency, representivity,
and so on. At least with your German diplomat I can see some
clear logic/train of accountability which, if for example, I'm
a trade unionist, an unemployed computer programmer, a
marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice
however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other)
group lobbying parties, members, ministers who in turn
instruct your German rep. It may not work but where would be
the equivalent linkages for these folks or the several billion
others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and 6.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Mike</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">-----Original
Message-----</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">From:
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</span></a>]</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Sent: Tuesday,
August 17, 2010 1:01 PM</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">governance@lists.cpsr.org</span></a>;
David Allen; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">governance@lists.cpsr.org</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Subject: AW:
[governance] multistakeholderism</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Dear David</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">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.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">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.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">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.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">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.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">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. :-)))</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Wolfgang</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">________________________________</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Von: David Allen [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu</span></a>]</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Gesendet: Di
17.08.2010 05:52</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">An: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">governance@lists.cpsr.org</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Betreff:
Re:[governance] multistakeholderism</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; color: rgb(5, 79,
176);">I really do not see big differences between ... It is a
little bit playing with words</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">This comes
perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author
most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions
to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the
quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead,
if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our
contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more
enlightened synthesis.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">MS'ism - as
practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and
insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether
that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the
states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some
power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what
has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that
is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for
co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are
chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter
the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'?</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">There is a
backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger
canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for
expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as
a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet
has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government.
Others have sought new forms of democratized governance,
globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected
and representative forms of government so far in place.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">As far as I can
see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people
govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be
turned to one or the other means, means often with very
different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a
dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will
replace representative forms of governance.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">This larger
canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be
a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps,
realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points,
what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out?</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">Heading that
direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here.</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica; min-height:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px; font: 12px Helvetica;">David</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>