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

[Carlos Afonso]

Thanks for your comments, Parm. I've just copied to the other authors as 
well.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 08-01-15 11:04, 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 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
>