[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

[Dan Krimm]

At 12:17 PM -0400 6/1/07, veni markovski wrote:

... The sooner we realize, and
>accept, that the majority of the online users do not care about
>Internet governance, the better.


This is certainly true, as it is of any public policy issue in the world
(not constrained to "Internet governance" by any means -- IG is really not
special in this regard).  Even the biggest issues on the public agenda as
defined by "mainstream media" are often ignored (or at least porrly
understood) by a majority of the affected population (at least in the U.S.
... ).

That's precisely why public representation is used in the U.S. democratic
system: because representation of interests must be a specialized expertise
and (more than) a full-time job.  We can't all be experts on all policy
issues that affect us as citizens.  Our representatives have a hard enough
time doing that, themselves (they rely on substantial staff to analyze the
issues, and sometimes too much on "special interest" lobbyists -- and even
worse, many mainstream journalists do the same thing, but I digress).  Even
full-time policy professionals usually can only concentrate deeply on a
single narrow subset of issues at a time.

Just because an individual citizen "does not care" about an issue does not
mean that that citizen does not have an "interest" in that issue, and
should not have that interest represented in a fair deliberative process.

Pardon the pervasive idiosyncrasy of the English language.  This is not
about "attention" but rather it is about a *stake* in an outcome (which is
why even people who do not pay attention to an issue can still be
stakeholders with regard to decisions about that issue).  Anyone who is
affected by a decision has an "interest" in the outcome of that decision,
whether or not they are even aware of the decision or would hold a coherent
opinion about it if they were.  This is the sense of the word that we are
using here.

Competence to participate actively in a governance process should not be a
filter on representation on an issue in any governance structure.  If it
were, we'd have no rights for children, for mentally challenged, for
non-speakers of the operative language of discourse, for those without
effective access, etc.  This is not my idea of democracy.  (And granted, we
have a ways to go to perfect the voting-driven system as well, as the devil
is in the details.)

We are all "citizens of the world" and we all have an individual
interest/stake in the outcome of Internet governance as a global
infrastructure, whether we individually pay attention to it or not.

How does the concept of "citizenship" work in a multi-stakeholder
consensus-driven process?  How can I feel confident that, even if I do not
participate directly, my interests as a citizen are being considered
fairly?  Forgive me if I do not see an affirmative answer to these
questions right now.

Dan

PS -- I think I can concur with Vittorio that "consensus" can best be
applied in contexts of "discussion" -- but ultimately I think all
"citizens" deserve "representation" and voting seems to be an ineliminable
component of such a representational process under a democratic system of
governance.  The real issue with "consensus" without voting is that it
isn't really democratic -- it's inevitably a decision-by-fiat of a small
elite, and if it makes an erroneous decision there is no effective
structure of accountability for recourse.  Consensus may be able to address
the easy/narrow issues, but not the broad/contentious issues.  So,
consensus is useful in constrained contexts where it is effective (please
excuse the tautological statement -- you know it when you see it, and it is
largely contextually defined), but it should not be pressed into service
where it cannot provide a fair decision process taking into balanced
account the interests/stakes of all citizens.

One should not underestimate how difficult it is to determine "fairness" or
"balance" in governance processes.  There is no perfect process to
accomplish this -- we've certainly not discovered one in the full extent of
human history, and we will likely be struggling with this indefinitely.
One should approach all models with humility and seek to apply what makes
sense according to context.

If a consensus model is to be considered, the first question to ask is: Is
this a context where it makes sense and can/should conceivably work?  If
not, then one should not seek to apply *only* consensus processes to that
context.

And, a particular design (i.e., fixed breakdown of stakeholder categories)
may work well for one narrow policy domain, but not be appropriate to a
different policy domain.  Again, the policy-scalability of consensus
processes is quite limited, and mission creep should be viewed with
substantial apprehension because at some point it will undermine the
utility of a consensus process to point of unworkability.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance