[governance] Ism or not Ism ?

[Avri Doria]

On 17 Aug 2010, at 19:26, parminder wrote:

> 
> Avri
> 
> On Wednesday 18 August 2010 02:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> in my very personal opinion.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> (yes, my role in the IGF may prejudice my outlook and commitment to the model.
>> but i am sure i would not have the role i do if i was not a true believer)
>> 
>>   
> 
> True believer in MSism as a policy discussing model or a policy making model ! :)

All from a personal point of view

But in terms using a multistakeholder model
I think you start with discussion
and in time policy making can happen.

i do not say that all implementations of the multistakeholder model will work the same, or that all can lead to concrete output.  But if the participants want that to be the case, it can be the case.

> 
> And if the IGF is ever going to be able to move anyway closer to policy making, in fact even to meaningfully input into global IG policy making, how and when ??

This is not for me to say.
or rather i don't know.

But i believe it could if that is what was wanted.
And I would argue that it is not true that there are no outputs, though it is true that is does not have the degree of output some would want to see.

for example: this year the Secretariat will publish a volume on the Good Practices that have been described over the years, and plans to introduce a online system that will allow for further good practices to be input.  This is, to my mind, an output.  

Is it all the IGC would like to see? I am sure not..  But we do not know how the IGF will evolve, but the last years have shown that if it is allowed to continue, it will continue to evolve. 

>   I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of the IGF  (the latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that IGF gives out 'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does).

That is one decision at one point in time. I remember when critical internet resources was a taboo subject.  Things change as the other stakeholder groups become convinced it should.  Perhaps it will take some time to get to all of IGC goals for the IGF.  then again it is the IGC that is in the forefront on so many ideas, so it is a bit utopian to expect that every advanced notion that IGC has will immediately be implemented in the IGF.  But as far as I can tell, more of them are included in some form or other, as time goes on. So I beleive it is important to persist in support and furtherance of the multistakeholder model.

> 
> In fact, some of those who are considered antagonist to MSism - like developing country governments, are the ones who have, and still are, advocating, some more clear and meaningful outcomes from the MS forum of the IGF.
> 
> Shedding of any light on this paradox will be highly appreciated.

I do not see the paradox.  I see a system, a very young system, that is still evolving.  Perhaps the paradox you see is just  the ontogeny of a global system.  I see IGC having reached some of it goals in IGF, and see it being frustrated at not having achieved others.  I would argue that  without a multistakeholder IGF, we would not have gotten as far in any of the policy areas as we have.  And yes, there is a long ways to go yet.  What else is new?


> 
> That could help us in deciding whether MSism is a model for making (or helping make) policy, or of obstructing progressive policy making possibilities.

The IGF is not the only place where the experiment on multistakeholder model is occurring.  It is also occurring in ICANN and elsewhere.  And while I will agree with anyone who says there is a long way to go in ICANN with deployment of a full multistakeholder system i believe it is making slow  progress in that direction.

It is a evolutionary process, and as with all evolutionary processes it is hard to see the mechanisms and see the proof.  As with other evolutionary processes, it is easy to see why people sometimes find it hard to accept that a cultural system is evolving.  But looking at the step wise refinements and improvements, sometime albeit through  a microscope, is what convinces me that it is a model for today - for the Internet, that works.

a.

> 
> Parminder

____________________________________________________________
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