[governance] Ism or not Ism ?

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Not really boxing depending on how you consider the three groupings. If 
civil society is restricted to formal organizations, and the same for 
business, then it boxes. Civil society is organized in ways far beyond 
the formal non-profits (I mean registered under the laws and tax 
regulations of some country), in fora such as the IGF no one checks if a 
certain CS constituency is "valid" and formalized, and I imagine 
business can participate in similar ways -- and let us concede that the 
academics are civil society too, Charlie Brown (this is another thread 
of intellectual infighting :)).

--c.a.

On 08/17/2010 09:19 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> 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
>
>
>

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
====================================
new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
====================================
____________________________________________________________
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