[bestbits] A BR view of multistkaholder processes...

[parminder]

pa
On Thursday 08 January 2015 06:34 PM, parminder wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> Thanks for the very useful article, and for posting it here. (For 
> those who would like to read it, i recommend downloading the full 
> magazine and then reading the article. It is very difficult to read it 
> online.)
>
> I am happy that finally multistakeholderism (MSism) is being openly 
> discussed and argued for, in formal write ups.
>
> I will like to make the following points about your article, and the 
> comparison it makes between the evolution of MSism in other areas of 
> global governance, largely within the UN system, and the MSism of the 
> IG world, of which the Net Mundial Initiative is the latest version.
>
> My main point here is that MS models hitherto, including all 
> historical examples that you have discussed, have always developed in 
> relation to a larger and clearly more formal and authoritative 
> decision making structure - and in all cases you discuss, such a 
> structure has been a UN body.

In fact, since the article mentions the CGI.Br model, and also, 
unfortunately, CGI guys seem to be driven to root for the NMI by the 
rightfulness and success of the CGI model,  it must be pointed out that 
CGI is what is it because it works clearly within and in relation to the 
state of Brazil, with its clear policy making systems and internal 
sovereignty. The equal footing MS model for IG at the global level, a la 
NMI, however, comes in and seeks to promote a global policy vacuum. This 
is not a small difference, it a basic structural one, which makes all 
the difference. Sorry to say, but one just hopes that the CGI people get 
this point.

On the other hand, even within the commanding overall structure of the 
Brazil state, there are 9 gov members in the 21 member CGI -- how is 
this equal footing? As you would see from the Commission for sustainable 
development  (CSD) participatory structures, the civil society group is 
so much vaster than business, which has just one small space. How is 
Internet different - how is it less significant to the lives of all 
people - why for instance media persons are not a separate group, as 
farmers are in the CSD, or women, as women are in the CSD? Because, the 
NMI is a plain and simple capture, by the US led status quoists, to 
prevent any global Internet normative and policy work. And 'they' spun 
the fable as suits them. To ask questions is of course to be on the side 
of China and Iran, the dark forces that are the ones that threaten the 
global Internet, not the US!

parminder


> In fact your article clearly speaks of the relationship of MS 
> structures to decision making bodies.
>
> (quote beings)
> *Connection to Decision-Makers*
>
> Multistakeholder bodies can interact in different ways with official 
> decision-making processes at the international, regional, or national 
> levels. Some MSM bodies are purely informative. Others can develop 
> best practices concerning a particular issue and present them to 
> governments. Multistakeholder bodies can also conduct participatory 
> monitoring of issues that affect society, such as a deforestation 
> index or the quality of Internet access provided by telecommunications 
> operators.
>
> (ends)
>
> Here, you lay our three functions of an MS system - providing 
> information and best practices (together, inputs) to decision makers, 
> and monitoring and assessments to hold policy makers accountable.
>
> All this is very well, and is what is generally called as 
> participatory democracy. In fact the Agenda 21  that you quote as 
> being the " first UN document to include different stakeholders’ roles 
> in a global agreement " is an excellent documenton participatory 
> democracy. (Incidentally, it neither speaks of MSism, nor even the 
> word 'stakeholder'.) Please see what kind of different roles it gives 
> to different groups (which you may like to call 'stakeholders'). 
> Especially see how NGOs and business are seen so differently, and how 
> the civil society group consists of so many different parts and 
> business/ industry is just one. And also of course all the roles of 
> all these groups stand is a specific relationship to policy makers.
>
> These are the values and principles that civil society has long fought 
> for - call it participatory democracy, or stakeholder consultations.. 
> However, and this is my principal point, the MSism that we see in the 
> IG space is not at all this kind of participatory democracy/ 
> stakeholder involvement . I of course speak of the *equal footing MS 
> model* that is we hear spoken of everywhere, and which is now meant to 
> be embodied in the NetMundial Initiative.
>
> This new post-democracy model cannot be derived from the growth of 
> participatory democracy in global governance that your papers tries to 
> derive it from... In this regard, I judge as inadequate, if not a bit 
> misleading, the premise - conclusion logic of your paper.
>
> The new equal footing (EF-MS) MS model, rather than work in relation 
> to a legitimate policy making structure, seeks to anticipate and 
> subvert it. We know that almost all NMI enthusiasts are firmly against 
> development of an Internet policy venue inside the UN, or in any other 
> democratic/ legitimate manner. It - the EF-MS model - seeks to itself 
> be the policy giver to the world in this area, which is the real 
> problem with equal footing MSism and with the NetMundial Initiative. 
> In the circumstances, it is quite inappropriate to connect its 
> evolution to that of participatory democracy in UN institutions, 
> including that for sustainable development.
>
> Now, you may say that neither is the equal footing MS model (nor the 
> NMI) into anticipating and preventing legitimate policy work at the 
> UN, nor is it even at all about policy work. Lets listen to the main 
> flag-bearer of the NMI idea, Fadi Chehade, defending the need for the NMI.
>
> "We need to make sure that next June we don't have delegation after 
> delegation going to UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly] saying 
> there are no solutions to these issues. "
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2
>
> Clear attempt to anticipate and prevent UN based policy development, 
> or do we need even clearer proof! And since UN bodies develop policy, 
> the proposed 'existing solutions', in the form of NMI's work, will in 
> effect be policy stuff - there is a saying , you cannot compare apples 
> to oranges.
>
> Of course, there is considerable verbal acrobatics going on to hide 
> and whitewash the (policy) intentions of the NMI. This is what another 
> NMI champion Wolfgang says (on the NMI website):
>
> "The NetMundial Initiative will bring solutions to the broad range of 
> Internet related policy problems."
>
> Again, an apples and oranges problem... If you bring solutions to 
> policy problems, then they must be come kinds of policies, right! (One 
> should be more considerate to ordinary language, but this is the new 
> age PR.)
>
> (One good thing about the NMI is that it is *equal footing MSism* in 
> flesh and blood and so one can effectively critique it, unless the 
> earlier slippery non-theories and non-substance of equal footing 
> MSism, other than employing it as an self-evident and self-justifying 
> creed).
>
> In sum, I am unable to agree with your connecting the current versions 
> of equal footing MSism, intending policy work, as a continuation of 
> the evolution of some tendencies in the global governance system, 
> beginning prominently with the Rio Summit on sustainable development. 
> In fact, I believe that they go in exactly the opposite directions - 
> one as deepening democracy and other as subverting it (equal footing 
> MSism). I have above pointed to the chief structural difference 
> between the two which can be observed empirically - that, one is based 
> an a specific relationship to legitimate policy making systems and 
> other seeks to anticipate and prevent them.
>
> best regards
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 07 January 2015 08:21 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> Just published in the IEEE Internet Computing journal:
>>
>> http://online.qmags.com/IC0115?sessionID=BD7A2B7CBEF89C57D8F47874E&cid=3193795&eid=19210#pg76&mode2
>>
>> The Origin and Evolution of Multistakeholder Models
>>
>> Virgilio Almeida - Federal University of Minas Gerais
>> Demi Getschko - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
>> Carlos Afonso - Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro
>>
>> Abstract: Various domains have adopted multistakeholder models (MSMs) to
>> address and deal with global challenges, such as sustainability,
>> environment, climate, and Internet governance. Here, the authors examine
>> the use of MSMs and their historical evolution, fundamentals, and
>> characteristics. They also present examples of how such models are used
>> in the global Internet governance ecosystem. Finally, the article
>> presents a series of research questions that can be tackled to improve
>> the efficiency of multistakeholder processes.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150108/4d270a0a/attachment.htm>