[bestbits] IGF plus

Tue Aug 27 13:17:34 EDT 2013

Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this...

I have often wondered about the basic difference that my organisation 
has with many others in the IG space... and It boils down to what is 
meant by MSism. So I would gain a lot by together exploring what we 
really mean by it - generally, and in different specific relationships, 
and also its relationship to democracy.
parminder

On Tuesday 27 August 2013 10:41 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> 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.organd 
> 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/abeb98c0/attachment.htm>