<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
pa<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 08 January 2015 06:34 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54AE806C.3090703@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana">Dear Carlos,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the very useful article, and for posting it here.
(For those who would like to read it, i recommend downloading
the full magazine and then reading the article. It is very
difficult to read it online.)<br>
<br>
I am happy that finally multistakeholderism (MSism) is being
openly discussed and argued for, in formal write ups. <br>
<br>
I will like to make the following points about your article, and
the comparison it makes between the evolution of MSism in other
areas of global governance, largely within the UN system, and
the MSism of the IG world, of which the Net Mundial Initiative
is the latest version.<br>
<br>
My main point here is that MS models hitherto, including all </font><font
face="Verdana">historical </font><font face="Verdana">examples
that you have discussed, have always developed in relation to a
larger and clearly more formal and authoritative decision making
structure - and in all cases you discuss, such a structure has
been a UN body.</font></blockquote>
<br>
In fact, since the article mentions the CGI.Br model, and also,
unfortunately, CGI guys seem to be driven to root for the NMI by the
rightfulness and success of the CGI model, it must be pointed out
that CGI is what is it because it works clearly within and in
relation to the state of Brazil, with its clear policy making
systems and internal sovereignty. The equal footing MS model for IG
at the global level, a la NMI, however, comes in and seeks to
promote a global policy vacuum. This is not a small difference, it a
basic structural one, which makes all the difference. Sorry to say,
but one just hopes that the CGI people get this point. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, even within the commanding overall structure of
the Brazil state, there are 9 gov members in the 21 member CGI --
how is this equal footing? As you would see from the Commission for
sustainable development (CSD) participatory structures, the civil
society group is so much vaster than business, which has just one
small space. How is Internet different - how is it less significant
to the lives of all people - why for instance media persons are not
a separate group, as farmers are in the CSD, or women, as women are
in the CSD? Because, the NMI is a plain and simple capture, by the
US led status quoists, to prevent any global Internet normative and
policy work. And 'they' spun the fable as suits them. To ask
questions is of course to be on the side of China and Iran, the dark
forces that are the ones that threaten the global Internet, not the
US!<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:54AE806C.3090703@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Verdana"> In fact your article clearly speaks of the
relationship of MS structures to decision making bodies.<br>
<br>
(quote beings)</font><br>
*Connection to Decision-Makers*
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Multistakeholder bodies can interact
in different ways with official decision-making processes at the
international, regional, or national levels. Some MSM bodies are
purely informative. Others can develop best practices concerning
a particular issue and present them to governments.
Multistakeholder bodies can also conduct participatory
monitoring of issues that affect society, such as a
deforestation index or the quality of Internet access provided
by telecommunications operators. </p>
<font face="Verdana">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>(ends)<br>
<br>
Here, you lay our three functions of an MS system - providing
information and best practices (together, inputs) to decision
makers, and monitoring and assessments to hold policy makers
accountable.<br>
<br>
All this is very well, and is what is generally called as
participatory democracy. In fact the Agenda 21 that you quote
as being the "</font> first UN document to include different
stakeholders’ roles in a global agreement <font face="Verdana">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>"</font> <font face="Verdana">is an excellent document</font><font
face="Verdana"> on participatory democracy. (Incidentally, it
neither speaks of MSism, nor even the word 'stakeholder'.)
Please see what kind of different roles it gives to different
groups (which you may like to call 'stakeholders'). Especially
see how NGOs and business are seen so differently, and how the
civil society group consists of so many different parts and
business/ industry is just one. And also of course all the roles
of all these groups stand is a specific relationship to policy
makers. <br>
<br>
These are the values and principles that civil society has long
fought for - call it participatory democracy, or stakeholder
consultations.. However, and this is my principal point, the
MSism that we see in the IG space is not at all this kind of
participatory democracy/ stakeholder involvement . I of course
speak of the *equal footing MS model* that is we hear spoken of
everywhere, and which is now meant to be embodied in the
NetMundial Initiative. <br>
<br>
This new post-democracy model cannot be derived from the growth
of participatory democracy in global governance that your papers
tries to derive it from... In this regard, I judge as
inadequate, if not a bit misleading, the premise - conclusion
logic of your paper.<br>
<br>
The new equal footing (EF-MS) MS model, rather than work in
relation to a legitimate policy making structure, seeks to
anticipate and subvert it. We know that almost all NMI
enthusiasts are firmly against development of an Internet policy
venue inside the UN, or in any other democratic/ legitimate
manner. It - the EF-MS model - seeks to itself be the policy
giver to the world in this area, which is the real problem with
equal footing MSism and with the NetMundial Initiative. In the
circumstances, it is quite inappropriate to connect its
evolution to that of participatory democracy in UN institutions,
including that for sustainable development. <br>
<br>
Now, you may say that neither is the equal footing MS model (nor
the NMI) into anticipating and preventing legitimate policy work
at the UN, nor is it even at all about policy work. Lets listen
to the main flag-bearer of the NMI idea, Fadi Chehade, defending
the need for the NMI.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">"</font>We need to make sure that next June
we don't have delegation after delegation going to UNGA [the
United Nations General Assembly] saying there are no solutions to
these issues. <font face="Verdana">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>"<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2</a><br>
<br>
Clear attempt to anticipate and prevent UN based policy
development, or do we need even clearer proof! And since UN
bodies develop policy, the proposed 'existing solutions', in the
form of NMI's work, will in effect be policy stuff - there is a
saying , you cannot compare apples to oranges.<br>
<br>
Of course, there is considerable verbal acrobatics going on to
hide and whitewash the (policy) intentions of the NMI. This is
what another NMI champion Wolfgang says (on the NMI website): </font><br>
<font face="Verdana">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
</font>
<p>"The NetMundial Initiative will bring solutions to the broad
range of Internet related policy problems."</p>
<p>Again, an apples and oranges problem... If you bring solutions
to policy problems, then they must be come kinds of policies,
right! (One should be more considerate to ordinary language, but
this is the new age PR.)<br>
</p>
<p>(One good thing about the NMI is that it is *equal footing
MSism* in flesh and blood and so one can effectively critique
it, unless the earlier slippery non-theories and non-substance
of equal footing MSism, other than employing it as an
self-evident and self-justifying creed).<br>
</p>
<p>In sum, I am unable to agree with your connecting the current
versions of equal footing MSism, intending policy work, as a
continuation of the evolution of some tendencies in the global
governance system, beginning prominently with the Rio Summit on
sustainable development. In fact, I believe that they go in
exactly the opposite directions - one as deepening democracy and
other as subverting it (equal footing MSism). I have above
pointed to the chief structural difference between the two which
can be observed empirically - that, one is based an a specific
relationship to legitimate policy making systems and other seeks
to anticipate and prevent them. <br>
</p>
<p>best regards<br>
</p>
<p>parminder </p>
<font face="Verdana"><br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 07 January 2015 08:21
PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54AD47FF.1000803@cafonso.ca" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Just published in the IEEE Internet Computing journal:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://online.qmags.com/IC0115?sessionID=BD7A2B7CBEF89C57D8F47874E&cid=3193795&eid=19210#pg76&mode2">http://online.qmags.com/IC0115?sessionID=BD7A2B7CBEF89C57D8F47874E&cid=3193795&eid=19210#pg76&mode2</a>
The Origin and Evolution of Multistakeholder Models
Virgilio Almeida - Federal University of Minas Gerais
Demi Getschko - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
Carlos Afonso - Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro
Abstract: Various domains have adopted multistakeholder models (MSMs) to
address and deal with global challenges, such as sustainability,
environment, climate, and Internet governance. Here, the authors examine
the use of MSMs and their historical evolution, fundamentals, and
characteristics. They also present examples of how such models are used
in the global Internet governance ecosystem. Finally, the article
presents a series of research questions that can be tackled to improve
the efficiency of multistakeholder processes.
frt rgds
--c.a.
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>