[governance] multistakeholderism
Paul Lehto
lehto.paul at gmail.com
Wed Aug 18 20:22:02 EDT 2010
If we just expand the number of "stakeholders" some more, before long
pretty much everyone with an "interest" or "stake" in the outcome will
have a seat at the table.
At that point, the only folks left out will be those solely concerned
with the public interest and nothing more (not even fundraising in
civil society to lobby for the public interest). These people have no
stake in the outcome. Then democracy will truly have been "deepened"
more than ever before, eh?
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 8/18/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 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
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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