[bestbits] RE: IGF plus

Wed Aug 28 02:03:23 EDT 2013

Dear all,

I find this discussion very interesting and I hope to be able to chip in
soon. May I however suggest to change the subject line to something more
specifically related to the topic at hand (which I think is only marginally
related to IGF 2.0, IGF++ or similar) ?

Ciao,

Andrea

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013, michael gurstein wrote:

> 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 <javascript:;>]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:22 AM
> To: 'anriette at apc.org <javascript:;>'; 'parminder'
> Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:;>'
> 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 <javascript:;>
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of
> Anriette
> Esterhuysen
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:04 AM
> To: parminder
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:;>
> 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>

-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130828/20f1d7d9/attachment.htm>