[bestbits] IGF plus

Wed Aug 28 00:56:37 EDT 2013

Perhaps to clarify a wee little bit.. To use an analogy-- gamblers in Las
Vegas have "stakes" (some large, some small which is what they are gambling
and these come and go and change with time), the casino owners have
"interests" and these change very very slowly. The first can be managed by
mutual agreement (depending on the nature of the game being played, the
second requires rather more substantial means to "manage" or regulate...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:22 AM
To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'parminder'
Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'
Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus

Thanks for this Anriette an interesting and useful article and good
background for our discussions.

Your having pointed me to the overall journal issue on this subject has
given me a chance to review the various positions and particularly that of
Bertrand  de la Chapelle a leading MSism proponent.

Reading these articles with post-Snowden eyes however, I must say that I
found the overall discussion very naïve and even disingenuous on the part of
some.  MSism takes as its central and defining concept the notion of the
"stake" as in a specific and "personal" (or direct) involvement in the
matter under discussion.  

What is lacking in this notion (and notably I didn't see any reference to it
in any of the articles in that journal issue) is the notion of "interest" as
in financial "interest", or perhaps more importantly "national interest".
One of the things that is coming out rather clearly from the Snowden
revelations is the degree to which the US (at least as represented by its
leading security agency) sees the infrastructure of the Internet (and its
dominance thereof through various mechanisms including I would say through
matters of Internet Governance) as being in it's "national interest".

What I fail to see in any of the MS discussions and dare I say fabulations
is any coming to grips with how very real, significant and powerful
"interests" are to be handled/managed/confronted within a MS framework.
While it is at least at the level of theory conceivable that all
stakeholders in the Internet environment might obtain some return from their
"stake",  I am at a loss to see how the interests of for example, total
global surveillance by the NSA can be reconciled with the interests of for
example, civil society in upholding global Human Rights.

My fear is that by dealing in these matters only at the level of "stakes",
we fail to respond to the matters of conflicts of "interests" and of course,
this diverting of attention only further allows for interest holders to
effectively pursue their specific interests in these matters.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
Esterhuysen
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:04 AM
To: parminder
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus

Agree this is an important issue to discuss. We need to unpack the the
terminology and the trends and identify what we really want and plan how to
get there. MS is being used as a synonym for democracy, and approached as an
end in itself as opposed to a means to an end. As people are sharing
readings, here is an article I wrote in response to a paper by Bertrand de
la Chapelle in MIND #2 (edited by Wolfgang
Kleinwachter)

http://www.collaboratory.de/w/A_Long_Way_to_Go_Civil_Society_Participation_i
n_Internet_Governance

Anriette

On 27/08/2013 19:17, parminder wrote:
>
> 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-partne
>> rs.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-demo
>> cracy-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.
>>
>
>

--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692