[governance] multistakeholderism

[Jovan Kurbalija]

While most of the government/UN 'world' is on holidays, we are having 
one of the most interesting discussions ever on this list. Is this 
another proof that IG is unique? ;) Here are a few reflections on the 
David/Michael/Wolfgang thread on IGF, multistakeholderism, etc.

I would be very careful in using the argument that IG and the IGF are 
unique because of the uniqueness of the Internet. The Internet is no 
longer as 'unique' (or perceived to be) as it was when Barlow was 
drafting his declaration from Davos or when we were discussing IG at the 
WGIG. In the meantime, the Internet has become 'grounded' in traditional 
geography. The formula could be: the more the Internet is anchored in 
geography, the less unique is its governance. Today, with geo-location 
tools (combining convenience and control) we are more geographically 
anchored than in the 'fleshware', pre-Internet era. Once we are 
geo-located, governance and policy move to 'normality', applying 
principles that are as old as the Code of Hammurabi.

In addition, one has also to be careful with the 'networked' argument 
and the end of traditional hierarchy. The world maybe 'flat', but the 
organisation of human society is still hierarchical. H. Simon, Nobel 
Prize winner, put some serious thinking into this matter. Ultimately, he 
argued that hierarchy is inherent to human organisation. What makes a 
difference is how this hierarchy functions. Are social elevators free to 
use? Is this hierarchy organised on might or merit? Is it controlled?

Lastly, on the communication aspect.... Most of us have contracted the 
chrono-narcissism virus, arguing that our own time is unique. Given the 
excitement of the last 20 years (end of the cold war, beginning of the 
Internet) it is not surprising. Moreover, it is human to think that we 
live our short time on the globe in a unique era. The problem starts 
when this argument is overused and inflated. Like any inflation it 
reduces the value of the inflated object. People get tired of it. Even 
Newsweek no longer announces every other issue with 'revolutionary', 
'brave new world', etc. The pendulum has moved - too far - into other 
direction of skepticism and caution. Everybody wants to find a 'Black 
Swan'. We have to be aware of this significant shift when we communicate 
IG/IGF stories.

Paradoxically, in spite of all this, the IGF really is still unique. 
What is the uniqueness of the IGF? First, it has been a great success. 
Today, when many global policy initiatives are stuck (climate change, 
NPT, middle east) the IGF should be/is a shining example. It is 
successful because it did not let policy differences degenerate into 
crisis and conflict. Today, with minor exceptions, we can access all 
Internet content. There are almost 2 billion users, with more and more 
people from developing countries. Controversial issues such as ICANN 
have been handled with wisdom, and given us time to sort out problems. 
The IGF played major role in the overall IG success.


The IGF has also started creating awareness that inclusiveness and the 
multistakeholder approach are not just ethical questions. They are 
equally, if not more, of a practical matter. The less people are 
engaged, the less they feel ownership of the global policy, the less 
they want to follow it. The limitations of current global policy are 
noticeable everywhere. One of the consequences of the failure of 
development policy is people getting on the boat sailing towards 
wealthier countries. An unbalanced IPR regime makes people feel that 
when they copy protected software or video they are not doing anything 
unethical. The list can continue.... In many cases the reason is that 
traditional policy-making has too narrow “a bandwidth” (parliament - 
government - diplomatic service – multilateral negotiations). It has 
legal, but not popular legitimacy. New forms that will increase the 
legitimacy of policy-making on national, regional and global levels are 
needed for the practical reasons of implementing what is agreed. 
Micheal's comment on broadening participation beyond the IGF "usual 
suspects" is extremely important.

The IGF's success is shown in many low-cost but powerful procedural 
improvements. The trio fantasticus (Marilia, Ginger and Bernard), with 
the support of the IGF Secretariat, has made remote participation a 
great success. This year there will be 28 hubs worldwide, with people 
discussing their local IG issues in schools, Internet cafes, town halls. 
Again, without pomp, against skepticism, with hard work they have built 
something which is of interest to many, beyond the IG circle. For 
example, in September, at the annual meeting of directors of all 
diplomatic academies in the world, Marilia will present the IGF's remote 
participation experience (http://ifdt10.diplomacy.edu/programme).

The list can continue..... the IGF is in many respects relevant and 
unique, but it is not 'more' unique because of the Internet's 
'uniqueness'. What was important in 2005 is not necessarily so any more. 
The world has changed a lot over the last 5 years and with it the raison 
d'être of the IGF.


Best, Jovan



On 8/19/10 10:19 PM, David Allen wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; 
> Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; 
> David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20100820/f7dbc9dc/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