[governance] multistakeholderism
David Allen
David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu
Thu Aug 19 16:19:39 EDT 2010
Are more votes at the table, from sectors newly inserted around the
table, desirable? practicable? Or might we postulate the question
differently (hopefully with some further perspective):
Do more views around the table contribute to better outcomes? But
does an attempt to formalize this – by trying to escalate the views
into votes – threaten the prospects?
Evidence is clear that better-informed views bring better results.
And – done right – adding views can be part of bringing better-
informed results. But the ‘done right’ means everything depends on
‘process:’ Exactly how are these additional views brought to bear?
As has also been variously noted, this – most fundamentally important
– detail, re process, so far is effectively ‘missing in action’ from
proposals on the table.
But power, and its distribution, is an arbiter. As variously
acknowledged, already (despite one earlier demurral).
> From a kings perspective the interference of a parliament in his
> decisions was seen as unneeded …
>
> YES , THERE IS THE NUB.
A distant forebear, in my larger family, reportedly signed the death
warrant of a king (which audacious act succeeded, for a time, but then
the signer had to flee …) CS holds no power of the death warrant, or
anything like coercive means.
In fact, when we look back, we see that reaching Phase 4 at WSIS [as
outlined in the original response, below] meant CS got a quarter of an
hour – when states instead had hours and days to present. Even in the
current moment, we see that (only) a couple individuals from CS will
be chosen to give voice, upcoming. Does the process of choosing who
ultimately speaks reflect the views of 6 plus billion users – users
are our focus, right? (The WSIS history also included a case when the
CS position was not checked with the group, as had been committed …)
IGF was a vital step forward. But states, for the larger part, have
been in a listening-post mode. And the private sector has not come
out in force. (Fortunately, IGF has come into its own, through dint
of great work, by many, so there is some institutional base from which
something might proceed.)
Nor is there evidence of the extant power equation shifting materially.
It is not unreasonable to imagine: If there is – let’s put it in
clear terms – overstepping, in a campaign to move to Stage 6 (ie, to
voting power), some of those who hold the real power will not respond
with a welcome. Could the proportional blowback even reduce or
eliminate possibilities for widening the views considered?
Of course, this is a realpolitik analysis. It does not address
desirability of the more ‘revolutionary’ proposals on the table.
But this, the normative, question has been addressed effectively
below. Perhaps the question can be couched: Do we really want
competing vectors for ‘representation’ of the user?
How – in realistic detail – would such vectors, particularly CS,
funnel up the views of six plus billion users? (And yes, though
complexity increases, representation is the social mechanism evolved
from the ancient past.) We can be sure that – if there ever were a
vote for that seat – the scramble for control of the position would be
beyond any imagining today. Certainly very far beyond any CS as now
existing.
Does the [new] ‘network’ save us from a ‘hierarchy’? For me anyway,
this has been addressed by (the text also inserted below):
> The internet is a tool … [b]ut … the tools do not drive the
> democracy …
Not to mention that humans have been ‘networked’ for many millennia.
Our social existence lies at the core of our being (which also is
almost certainly hard-wired to be hierarchical).
There is a phrase, ‘technological determinism,’ intended to encourage
appreciating that humans, not machines, make outcomes. What of course
is also important is how we co-evolve with the machines and the new
capabilities they may bring.
Which can bring us back to a central question: What are the processes
by which more useful viewpoints can be brought to the decision table?
Certainly the connectedness of the Internet tool may extend the reach
of ancient social bonds. But almost certainly the issues will, in the
end, be quintessentially human. How do we fruitfully get more views
to a table that will ultimately meld them all into a conclusion?
Those who propose ‘a new regime’ surely are on a quest aimed to make
our lives better. Rather than the ‘revolutionaries’ we see in the
news daily, who do not make lives better (but often much worse – and
who disappear from the scene often with ignominy), how might these
energies and commitments move us to a better place?
What are the processes that might bring more useful views to the
decision table (one likely to be controlled by a hierarchy of
[hopefully democratic] representatives)?
David
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
Wolfgang,
-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:01 AM
To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism
Michael
Thanks michael for you long explanation. if I understand you correctly
your are in favour of a multistakeholder dialogue below the
governmental level . In your concept the balancing of the various
interests on the ground lead to a "government" at the top of a
hierarchie. And it is the duty of a "good government" to take all
stakeholders legitime interests into consideration when they develop
policies and take decisions, domestically as well as in internaitonal
bodies. If people do not like the government they elect another
government. This is okay and this we practice in good democracies, in
particular in Denmark, since decades.
YES
What works in a "hierarchy" probably does not work in a "network". And
again the chain of representation gets longer and longer in a
complicated world where the chances that the input from the ground
ends with the correct output at the negotiaton table is questionable.
I AGREE WITH THE FINAL PART OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE... THE ISSUE OF A
SHIFT FROM A "HIERARCHY" TO A "NETWORK" IS NOT VERY CLEAR TO ME
(SCOPE, APPLICATION, EVIDENCE) NOR IS WHAT CONCLUSIONS YOU WOULD DRAW
FROM THIS "SHIFT" AND WHAT BASIS YOU HAVE FOR DRAWING THESE CONCLUSIONS.
Again, a more practical example with regard t the forthcoming
negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA: Do you share the view
that it would be good if the Internet Community lets say from Chile
would have a chance to channel its views not only to the career
diplomat, sitting on behalf of the Chilean Foreign Office in the 2nd
Committee but would have also a more direct channel via Chilenean or
Latin American CS structures (or an ALS/LACRALO) which could be
probably much more specific in explaining the details).
THIS REQUIRES MORE EXPLANATION--WHAT ARE THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED
(TECHNICAL, NORMATIVE, DISTRIBUTIVE AND SO ON)? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY
"MORE DIRECT CHANNEL" HERE, AND WHAT IS BEING CHANNELED TO WHOM AND BY
WHOM FOR WHAT PURPOSE, AT WHOSE INITIATIVE, IN WHAT DECISION MAKING
CONTEXT AND SO ON. CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE,
INSIGHT, INDICATIONS OF POPULAR SUPPORT/DISAGREEMENT AND SO ON WOULD
BE VALUABLE TO THE OVERALL DISCUSSION AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS (BUT
REMEMBERING THAT THESE CHANNELS ARE AS OPEN TO NON-CS FORCES AND
INFLUENCES AS TO CS ONES AND WHERE THE ISSUE AT HAND MATTERS (FOR
EXAMPLE FINANCIALLY), THOSE NON-CS FORCES ARE LIKELY TO BE BETTER ABLE
TO MAKE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS THAN IS CS.
World gets more complex. General solutions will not work if they do
not offer space for very differentiated "issue tailored solutions". To
get this right, you need more expertise, knowledge and representation
on the table.
YES, THE WORLD IS GETTING MORE COMPLEX... WHETHER WE WANT
"DIFFERENTIATED SOLUTIONS" IS ANOTHER MATTER--THE OBVIOUS ONE FOR ME
IS SAY NET NEUTRALITY. DO WE REALLY WANT ONE SOLUTION FOR THOSE ABLE
TO PAY AND ANOTHER FOR THOSE NOT ABLE TO PAY.
THE PRIMARY DIFFERENTIATOR IN MOST SOCIETIES IS WEALTH AND DO WE
REALLY WANT TO DEVELOP GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF
ALLOWING ONE SOLUTION FOR THE RICH AND ANOTHER FOR THE POOR? MAYBE
TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS US TO DO THAT IN NEW WAYS AND IN NEW AREAS BUT IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT TRADITIONAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS BEAUTIFUL TWIN THE
SOCIAL CONTRACT IS WORTH PRESERVING EVEN IF NEW WAYS OF UNDERMINING IT
ARE BEING DEVELOPED AS WE SPEAK.
Certainly this will lead to a redistribution of power and this
provokes the power struggle we see today. Who loves to share power?
But power is shifting with the complexity of issues. When parliaments
where invented in the middle ages, the kings were not amused that
somebody wnated to have a say in decision making. From a kings
perspective the interference of a parliament in his decisions was seen
as unneeded because he had his advisers and owned all the wisdom.
YES, THERE IS THE NUB. DO WE AS CS PROMOTE A SHIFT IN POWER AWAY FROM
"THE PEOPLE" TO CORPORATIONS, TECHNOCRATS (EXPERTS), THE WEALTHY, I.E.
THOSE WITH THE RESOURCES AND SKILLS CAPABLE OF EXERTING INFLUENCING
(GAMING THE SYSTEM) IN OUR INTERNET ENABLED WORLD.
I like Jefseys concept of polycracy. As we know from Mr. Hegel and
Mr.Marx, simple things are becoming more complex if issues move to a
higher level. And the move from the industrial society (with its
representative democracy) to the information society (with a still
undefined governance model) is such a move to a higher more complex
level.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A "polycracy" WOULD LOOK LIKE AND FROM WHAT I
GATHER NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, WITH ANY CLARITY; SO BEFORE WE MAKE
OUR COLLECTIVE LEAP OF FAITH INTO THIS MISTY NEW WORLD I THINK IT
MIGHT BE RATHER MORE USEFUL TO GIVE OUR ATTENTION TO FIGURING OUT HOW
THE TECHNO-MAGICAL PROPERTIES AND AFFORDANCES OF THE DIGITAL WORLD--
COMMUNICATIONS EVERYWHERE, UBIGUITOUS INFORMATION ACCESS AND CONTROL,
ALMOST INFINITE UNIVERSAL MEMORY AND SO ON CAN HELP US TO DEEPEN A
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM THAT WHATEVER ITS FLAWS HAS DONE RIGHT BY MORE
PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER AND IS STILL THE UNQUESTIONED ASPIRATION OF THE
VAST NUMBERS OF THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO ITS OPPORTUNTIIES AS WELL AS
THOSE EVERYWHERE WITHOUT OTHER SOURCES OF POWER OR OPPORTUNITY.
BEST,
MIKE
Best wishes
wolfgang
________________________________
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Paul Lehto wrote:
...
The internet is a tool, usually for greater democracy such as in Iran,
etc. But in any case, the tools do not drive the democracy, as seemed
to be suggested in another post calling democracy "outdated" based on
the new communication patterns fostered by the internet. If the needs
or characteristics of a technology drive democracy, then it is
technology that is in control of governance and not people.
...
________________________________
Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mi 18.08.2010 20:23
An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism
Wolfgang,
(I think I asked you first... but anyway...;-)
This is a bizarre theory of government you are suggesting. Government,
at least democratic governments are not (at least in principle)
"stakeholders"... They don't or at least shouldn't have an independent
"stake" in the outcomes of governance, rather they are the crucible
through which the democratic citizenry expresses their voice as to
desireable outcomes in public policy/decision making. The citizens
give individual elected governments the right to manage the public
interest on their behalf using government public services as their
agents through regular and democratically conducted elections. The
citizens have the right to remove the mandate from those elected
governments as they choose if they don't think that they are executing
or managing the public interest appropriately as they understand this
(civics 101).
Elected governments have an ambition to stay in power and thus act so
as to develop and implement public policies of interest to the various
active and effective stakeholders (business, civil society etc.) in
such a way that these "stakeholders" in turn will provide the
necessary support (financial, human resource support in elections) to
allow governments to run successful campaigns and remain in power.
Thus they consult with, accept representations from, are influenced by
these various "stakeholders" (self-interested parties) but this
process does not include transferring decision making responsibiliity
to any of those parties. (Under many circumstances this would in fact
be illegal and seen as corrupt practice.)
The above sometimes gets distorted (sometimes wildly distorted)
because of the cost and complexity of running modern elections/
governments but at least that's the theory and in reasonably well-
ordered democracies things operate more or less on that principle.
The fact that many are disillusioned with the practices of certain
specific (democratic) governments doesn't to my mind negate the
principles of democractic practice which seem to me to be provide the
greatest good for the greatest number overall. It does however,
suggest that in those countries where there is concern, those with an
interest in making the operations better should develop ways of
enhancing the democratic process.
Digital tools now provide a variety of new ways for achieving enhanced
("deepened"?) democracy as for example through facilitating rapid
communication and widespread access to information. This in turn
enhances the possibility of citizens (and thus electors) having for
example greater access to information, means of ensuring
accountability on the part of their elected representatives and
transparency of the various processes of governmental operations and
administration.
I'm sure this sounds incredibly simple minded to most of you folks but
it is probably worth repeating here simply as an antidote to what
appear to be some serious misunderstandings of how (democratic)
governments in principle (and to a very considerable degree in many
many instances) in fact do/should are legally obliged to operate.
As for ways forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way
forward as being the establishment of some frameworks for global
governance (perhaps in specific identified areas) with clear rules of
operation/legitimacy/participation and means for enforcement. Those
rules may be (perhaps need to be) supranational but it can't I think
for reasons that should be obvious, be left to decisions by those who
(have the means and interest) to show up and participate. The problem
with with leaving it to those who show up (and in the absence of
rules) is that those with the resources and the specific "stake" i.e.
return from the outcome will find whatever means necessary to realize
their ends and ultimately dominate the process. And those with less of
a focused "stake" (viz. the public) will inevitably lose out.
(Microsoft's apparently successful suborning of various global/
national standards setting processes to serve their specific product
promotion interests is an obvious example.)
Again in response to your question, the rules going forward need to be
based on a clear recognition that the over-arching value is support
for the (global) public interest and ensuring that the development of
those rules are based on the broadest possible and democratic
inclusion into the definition of what the public interest is in
specific areas.
Best to all,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:06 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100819/0bf73c94/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