AW: [governance] multistakeholderism

Tue Aug 17 16:01:07 EDT 2010

Dear David

thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. 

Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach.  

Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. 

We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. 

BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-)))

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu]
Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism

> I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit 
> playing with words

This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author.  That 
author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions 
to be 'playing with words'...  Such is not convivial for the quality 
exchange we have seen on this list of late.  Instead, if we take care 
to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and 
evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis.

MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try 
and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes.  Whether 
that will 'work' is still unclear.  Power, as held by the states, is 
the starting point.  Will they cede and share some power?  That is the 
core question.  Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS 
some seat at the table.  Indeed, that is to be treasured.  Has it also 
created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing 
which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony?  Has CS (or for 
that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'?

There is a backdrop against which this has occurred.  On that much 
larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for 
expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global 
polity.  In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed 
a new form of [effectively global] government.  Others have sought new 
forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states 
per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so 
far in place.

As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication.  But 
people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be 
turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end 
effects.  (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully-
worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of 
governance.

This larger canvas can situate the present subject:  MS'ism might 
indeed be a 'step along the way.'  But what are further steps, 
realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what 
forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out?

Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as 
here.

David
____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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