AW: [governance] multistakeholderism
Eric Dierker
cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net
Wed Aug 18 20:48:54 EDT 2010
If a man carries weight and the day, rather than an Idea or suggestion -- then
all the negative below occurs. If people are elevated as though the fact it is
their opinion counts and not the merit then you have double the negative below.
If however you champion the idea and not the position or speaker then you have
none of the negative below. There are not just your 3 choices - if only there
were. You left out where groups develop policy and then advocate it to the duly
elected representatives -- that is in fact what I would call
multistakeholderism.
________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>;
governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 10:05:49 AM
Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism
Dear Michael
you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between
(traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy
(including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making) is
deepening democracy or not?
What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms")
1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes decisions (a
good government consult a bad does it not)
2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know
when governments follow strong lobbying by industry.
3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected parties,
including civil society, to the negotiation table.
If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer?
Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in the
room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the issue and
are immune against corruption.
Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among the
participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative principles
have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in drafting such
principles).
As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is
concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize
conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be stupid if
one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder (or try to
substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation where different
perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions (which means balance
of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and fair to all parties.
Wolfgang
________________________________
Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism
Wolfgang,
This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of
WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you...
I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying,
providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very
valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on
what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected,
self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should)
somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion
actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making
concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter).
The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in
Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute
for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with
your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability
which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer
programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice
however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying
parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not
work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the
several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and
6.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism
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=
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100818/6797ba55/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list