<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<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. 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 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 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>