[bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants

[Avri Doria]

hi,

I would rather put it that: a form that does not incorporate principles of participatory democracy is not multistakeholder.

Your question is a bit loaded by using the word 'deserve'.  I am not making an axiological judgement or speaking of merit.  

In my work on multistakeholder models and definitions, I have become convinced that if it isn't attempting to foster greater participatory democratic participation, leaving aside the degree to which it may or may not be succeeding at any particular moment or according to any single judge, it isn't a multistakeholder model.

For me, participatory democracy that incorporates other forms of democracy including representative democracy where appropriate, is the holy grail that many efforts that have come to be called multistakeholder are trying to achieve.  Certainly I would not define as multistakeholder any effort for which this wasn't a fundamental goal.

This is part of my love/hate relationship with ICANN.  Sometimes I am sure that this is exactly what we are about - though only succeeding partially.  And at other times, I think we forget that this is our fundamental mission until someone points out that we have lost our way and we correct our course.

avri



On 17 Oct 2013, at 00:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> 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... ;-)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131017/cb641c28/attachment.sig>