<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=DE link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hola Roxana,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>comparto tu punto de vista!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Saludos desde Múnich,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Lorena Jaume-Palasí<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>___________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Wiss. Mitarbeiterin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Geschwister Scholl Institut für Politikwissenschaft. LMU<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>www.gsi.uni-muenchen.de/personen/wiss_mitarbeiter/jaume-palasi<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>Von:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> governance@lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org] <b>Im Auftrag von </b>Roxana Goldstein<br><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch, 8. Juni 2011 14:08<br><b>An:</b> governance@lists.cpsr.org; parminder<br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [governance] MSism and democracy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no vamos a cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil del IGF, con nada de éxito.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Roxana Goldstein<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2011/6/8 parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Dear Bertrand,<br><br>Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen to get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the contrary of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast who have run away from probing questions both of (1) the principled and logical basis of their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working models of governance that they propose. I hope in this present discussion they, and you, can answer such questions.<br><br>I have quite often stated my problems with MSism as it</span> mostly gets spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting during the panel discussion moderated by you.<br><br>Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is <br><br>"what I am missing in your very critical comment ("<i>it is very much the wrong direction</i>") is the proposed alternative;" <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening democracy or what we may also call as participatory democracy (though not the anarchic versions of it which suffer from the precise ill you speak of - a real workable alternative model). Its institutional forms - existing and those possible in the future - have been well discussed in literature, and there is enough stuff about practical working models as well, including some about the global space. I am ready, in fact eager, to have a specific discussion on this. <br><br>I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of working models of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking democracy forward rather than supplanting it. We, as in my organisation, worked with the Indian government delegates to come up with a clear proposal on how MAG for instance should be constituted, which addresses the negatives of MSism. This part of the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, which is also largely contained in the contribution IT for Change made to the process. Is it not specific enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring role' I am eager to know what are your own views on it.<br><br>The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of your email.<br><br></span>".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under way presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?" <br><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br>First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge huge improvements changes. This must be obvious from my contributions to the IGC and other forums. However, my contention also is that MSism as currently practised in the IG arena may actually be making things worse.<br><br>Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are less powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can you honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing currently? I do not think so. I think it has become a cover or a legitimising device for increased influence on policy making of those who are already very powerful, with which I mean the big business in the digital/ IT/ Internet space. There are numerous examples of this, and what is more problematic is how such huge transgressions to political and democratic propriety are routinely responded to by 'deep silences' on the part of</span> MSism upholders. Such silences favouring the interests of the powerful, as you will also see from the Spanish protests (as also earlier ones in the Arab world), are the very anti-thesis of new democratic processes that we would like to see take root. Following are but a very few examples of what MSism in IG space is really showing up to be....<br><br>1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates the discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific details here but am happy to discuss this further if you so want. Developing country gov reps have consistently raised this issue in their private conversations about the IGF and the MAG. Very often this is the first and the main issue they raise, and I have to agree with them.<br><br>2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was supposed to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory council made exclusively of big business.<br><br>3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed regulation, together practically wrote the net neutrality legislation of the the county which is the digital capital of the world. One would, today, still think it impossible that the top drug company and the top private hospital chain in the US 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text secretively is a different thing) come up with the default health policy draft, even in the US. This is an instance of the kind of 'firsts' that the IG world is contributing to our political systems, and the MS discourse certainly has something to so with it. <br><br>4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has a practical monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who acquired this business by buying off the incumbent public sector company through means that have been severely questioned. Again a first in the name of MSism.<br><br>5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital content companies, interested in the huge public education 'market' of India, quite ingeniously managed to become the key and driving participants of an 'officially' mandated MS process of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs in schools' policy. The draft that came out was of course on the expected lines. It took a huge amount of work from organisation like ours to get the drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But such things have not stopped.... So it is not for the joy of contrarinian-ism that I offer critiques to MSism, this has had central implications to my organisation's political struggles.<br><br>6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting only of big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds consultations where only these big business reps are invited. (see for a recent meeting of such kind <a href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf</a> ). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any other department in India. <br><br>The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with MSism, to quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors, the north-south unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented' , one needs to know clearly what is being done about them. Merely mentioning them as a footnote is of little use to those whom these issues really bother. What I see is that there seems not even the readiness to debate these issues, much less do anything about them, which to me confirms my hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much what goes for MSism in the IG arena.<br><br>Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are they ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of hazy MSism as they recommend for global governance? If not why this discrimination - democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because global democracy brings the danger of global redistributions with it, and MSism on the other hand helps promote Northern businesses establish even greater global dominance and thus creates transfer channels in directions opposite to what globally democratic political systems will tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for Northern governments' enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not at places where they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind the 'friendly governments' discourse frequently heard on this list. <br><br>Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further. <br><br>Parminder<br><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br></span>On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Parminder, <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks for sharing the article.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Two points on your remarks:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the current modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do deserve attention (such as the risks of capture, the weight of some actors, the north-south unbalances and the representation of the unrepresented); however, what I am missing in your very critical comment ("<i>it is very much the wrong direction</i>") is the proposed alternative; imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under way presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and "deeper democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ? <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Best<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Bertrand<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>