[governance] [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

[David Cake]

On 9 Feb 2014, at 3:26 pm, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real and present danger.

	Multi-stakeholderism that is not genuinely open to all, and that is not transparent, is a real danger. 
	But in contrast, multilateral intergovernmental institutions are not open to all by definition and design. When combined with a lack of transparency, this can be disastrous. 

> But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we call democracy? In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties. The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse in some other countries.

	For an example, the Australian Law Reform Commission released its final report into copyright reform, recommending many changes including a switch from a common law fair dealing system to a US style fair use system, which would add substantial flexibility. The report had contributions from hundreds of stakeholders, involvement of industry representatives and other experts, very senior judges and legal experts, etc. The minister announced he was not convinced - taken by many to be the first step in rejecting it. Is it a coincidence the Ministers party has received large campaign contributions from large copyright holders such as the movie industry? 

> 
> And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.
> 
> The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating  as regards nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business interests from crowding the public out of the tent ".
> 
> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any form of governance, highly corruptible .

	Openness and transparency are essential aspects of multi-stakeholderism. Not all MS institutions are equal in this respect, and we should ensure that truly open participation and full transparency are among the principles for future MS institutions. 
	
> The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)".
> 
> It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a central design element.

	Indeed. Much of ICANNs institutional design makes much more sense if you understand this historical background. 

	Regards
		David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140214/b636b16c/attachment.sig>