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

[parminder]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150108/c9c38bfe/attachment.htm>