[governance] Ism or not Ism ?

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Dear all,

Avri has triggered an interesting thread that is a recurring discussion
among us.

As a general input, I sense that there is strong reluctance towards the
expression multistakeholderism and apparently less regarding other, like
multistakeholder processes, multistakeholder model or multistakeholder
approach.

I'd like to understand a bit better the rationale. Is it because the use of
"ism" seems to imply a sort of achieved model, a general theory, or a
movement ? Let's leave aside for the moment the rest of the discussion on
the value (or dangers) of the MS approach to understand better what people
feel is behind the use of an "ism" termination.

Anriettte has formulated a valid concern in that respect :
- the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude
'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil
society, government and business.
- this obscures diversity within each of those groups
- and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy
way to brand processes as being democratic

That concern I completely share (as my recurrent criticism of the "siloed"
process in ICANN demonstrates). But is there something else regarding the
use of an "ism" termination ?

In any case, I personally have always felt that multistakeholderism is an
ugly word in itself and much prefer multi-stakeholder governance or
multistakeholder processes. But it is hard to find a better word (been
struggling with that for long), even if I'm sure it is merely transitory
(like "horseless carriages" before we labeled them "automobiles")

As a matter of fact, *the term Governance, on its own, could be sufficient*.
The WSIS has provided the now famous definition of Internet Governance that
I usually summarize as follows : "IG is the multistakeholder development and
application of shared regimes that shape the evolution and use of the
Internet".  Here, Multi-stakeholder stands for "by governments, civil
society and the private sector, in their respective roles".

As the discussions in the IGF demonstrate, the major challenge to define the
desired "Governance Framework" is *to clarify the "respective roles" beyond
the restrictive (and siloed) interpretation of the famous Article 35 or the
Tunis Agenda*. Isn't it what this discussion about multistakeholderism is
all about ? Not about which category of stakeholders is best, more
legitimate, or more powerful, but how to ensure full participation, rules of
engagement, representation of all viewpoints and clear and transparent
processes.

Best

Bertrand



-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100817/2f6c857e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t