[bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants

[Norbert Bollow]

Hi Avri

Do in your view all forms of multistakeholderism deserve to be
considered a “a form” of democracy?

Greetings,
Norbert

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think that one reason the form of participatory democracy we are
> calling multistakeholderism (MSism) is not uniform in that there are
> many ways in which it can be expressed.
> 
> I do not think we will find a single definition.  And even if we
> could, even if there was just one modality for MSism, just one way to
> implement the multistakeholder model ,it would be something that is
> still in development and discovery.
> 
> But I do not beleive there is a single way to implement a
> multistakeholder model, and I don't beleive any existing organization
> has the perfect exemplar - though there may be one I don't know of
> either in Internet governance or some other field and though several
> of those still in the crucible of real life deployment attempting
> real world management and regulatory functions do show promise, in my
> opinion.
> 
> It is a relatively new trend in world history and in the development
> of democracy - less that few score years at the most.  It is a form
> that I beleive is built upon the modern world's ability to
> communicate across cultures and to travel freely across borders.
> 
> I think as we gain more experience and do more study on the variety
> of multistakeholder models we will discover characteristics that all
> forms of the model must have.  
> 
> I think the points you make below are all part of the framework for
> any definition.  And I think there is value in trying to scope out
> the framework, starting with the things that no governance system
> that wants to call itself multistakeholder can do without.
> 
> I think your list of questions is the start of a good question set.  
> 
> I also think that BestBits spending time on  this is a good idea, as
> long as it does not try to define one form, or as long as it does not
> create a strawman that allows people to discount the ongoing real
> life efforts to develop participatory democracy in governance.  If we
> develop a system purely for the reason of furthering people's attacks
> on the existing efforts at the multistakeholder model, I think it
> will be counterproductive, at best.
> 
> avri
> 
> Note: I would make the point that it is even harder to define civil
> society than it is to define MSism.  but given that I self identify
> as a member of both civil society and the technical community, I
> strongly agree about the commonality of many goals.
> 
> 
> On 16 Oct 2013, at 09:25, John Curran wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day
> >> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet
> >> policy issues of the moment.  Although the agenda (particularly
> >> for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass
> >> government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation
> >> of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes
> >> underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation,
> >> plus more
> > 
> > I note on the agenda is the item "What is
> > multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with respect to matters of
> > Internet coordination/governance)
> > 
> > As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that
> > everyone is using the term in the same manner, and documenting the
> > meaning of the term with some clarity might be very helpful in the
> > coming days (particularly if it were to be defined from the civil
> > society perspective)
> > 
> > In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require:
> > 
> > - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or
> > common purpose?
> > 
> > - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all
> > interested parties?
> > 
> > - Documents and materials made freely available online to all
> > parties?
> > 
> > - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide
> > consideration of all inputs/views?
> > 
> > - Respect for all participants involved?
> > 
> > If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term
> > "multi-stakeholder" (in matters of Internet
> > coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term
> > does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more
> > solid set of principles regarding its use.  If this suggestion is
> > not aligned with your present plans or goals for the meeting, feel
> > free to discard it as desired.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > /John
> > 
> > Disclaimers: My views alone.  These views were not formed via
> > multi-stakeholder processes (unless one credits various portions of
> > my consciousness with independent stakeholder status... ;-)
> >  
> >  
> > 
>