[bestbits] IGF plus

Tue Aug 27 13:11:16 EDT 2013

I think it would be useful to have a basic discussion of what we mean by M/S in the BB framework

Andrew Puddephatt, Director          Global Partners Digital
Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK
Office 44 (0)207 549 0350
Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
andrew at g<mailto:andrew at global-partners.co.uk>p-digital.org                  www.global-partners.co.uk<http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 02:42
To: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>>
Cc: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus

My apologies if I'm going over ground that has already been sewn and harvested (I've been dealing with other matters for the last 3 months or so) but the issue of MSism really needs to start with a basic legitimacy of the constituting of the various stakeholder elements… how these interact to my mind (as covered in the items you point to below) is I think, a secondary issue…

The current status appears to be something like all actual "stakeholders" are welcome (until they aren't), everyone can be a stakeholder(until they can't--for reasons of cost, voice, status, knowledge, skill etc.), "legitimate" stakeholder groups can simply, by showing up, obtain legitimacy without having to subscribe to any type of formal internal process (transparent, accountable etc.?) for the determination of the nature of the "stake" that they are "holding"/pursuing and so on, "legitimate stakeholders" q.v. are welcome but there are no effective means to facilitate participation of other (new, non-existing stakeholders (or to legitimize non-currently legitimized stakeholders… etc.etc.

In my blogpost of some time ago, I talked about MSism vs. democracy<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/> and I don't see that we/anyone has made any progress in this area in the interim.  I'm ready to agree that there are significant limitations with the use of representative democracy in the IG area but I am concerned that we may be too ready to jump on the MS bandwagon without having a very clear idea of what it means not only to us but to any of the other MS parties.

And to respond to Andrew's question, I think the place to start is at the beginning--by insisting on/initiating some basic discussions on what is meant by MSism in the various forums where it is being invoked and working towards some sort of formalization (even if it is the formalization of the informal) in these processes at least to the extent of making them visible and thus subject to discussion and clarification. I'm thinking that the various workshops addressing this at the IGF will begin the process but I think we i.e. BB/CS has the responsibility/opportunity to be thinking of where this might go post IGF as for example into a declaration on what we mean by MSism and how we recognize MS processes which we believe are legitimate from a CS perspective.

BTW, to be clear, I'm raising this not to attempt to fork other discussions but rather to suggest that unless there is clarity and agreement on these fundamentals it is hard to accept the legitimacy of anything that follows from these i.e. MS processes.

M

From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:56 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: 'Andrew Puddephatt'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus

On 26/08/2013, at 3:36 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:

I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes a "stakeholder" group  and under what sort of governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate within I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF that is capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever.  This isn't to say that we should be working in that direction but just to say that if the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that follows is suspect.

I agree with everything bar the prefatory "before we start thinking about an IGF+" - as indeed as soon as we start to think about an IGF+, we are led inevitably to the reinforcement and formalisation of the IGF's governance/transparency/accountability structures.

We have collectively begun to explore the IGF+ with the "IGF multistakeholder opinions" statement that many of us signed at http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/.  So that's a good starting point.

I continue to stand by the slightly more elaborate "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" proposal that I developed for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.  See the thread "Comparison of five current civil society options" in the EC list for more on this (21 July and following, or I can repost here).

For more detail still (largely consistent with the above, though with some differences in nomenclature), there's the paper "Appraising the Success of the Internet Governance Forum" that I wrote for the Internet Governance Project some (five!) years ago now, which is available from both http://igfwatch.org and http://www.internetgovernance.org.

--

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org<http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130827/615dcf17/attachment.htm>