[bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants

[michael gurstein]

Hmmm... Interesting...

I've been following these and associated discussions for some time now and
this is the first time that I've ever seen the association that you are
making below, Avri, between MSism and Participatory Democracy in fact when
the subject has been discussed at all, my sense was that most MS advocates
treated democracy in whatever manifestation with some contempt.

Based on my reading the way in which MSism is usually used in these
discussions would I think be diametrically differerent from how I understand
PD.

PD								MSism
structured/rule governed decision processes			no firm
determination/rules of decision processes
structured/rule governed processes for inclusion		no defined
(agreed upon) processes/rules for inclusion
equality as between participants				equality as
between stakeholders groups
equality as between participants				no
determination of relative status of participants within stakeholder groups
general acceptance of democratic governance framework 	MSism seen as
alternative form of governance to democracy
						
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:15 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants

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