[governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand

[michael gurstein]

Since we are discussing basic civics at this point... and up front I agree
with Milton on a lot of what he says below...
 
However, for most of the world the fundamental challenge of democratic
governance is how to balance the rights of individuals and minorities (and
yes majorities) with the over-arching need/responsibility to accomplish
significant collectively arrived at social goals/undertakings (let's use the
MDG's as our surrogate for this but I'm sure we could develop a rather
lengthy list here including dare I say finding a means for managing the
global digital platform/communications commons that is the Internet).
 
I completely agree that MS is a (not particularly adequate or effective)
transition point in moving from governance strategies and structures which
empirically can be seen as not delivering the goods as above at tje nation
state level and most certainly don't scale for the kind of globally
necessary undertakings that seem to be emerging--of which governance of the
Internet is among the least threatening and least complex.
 
Where or how we go from here in responding to those challenges is certainly
not clear (to me at least) although the Internet and new communications
modalities and opportunities present some interesting glimmers of possible
directions for development in this area.  
 
I personally see the current experimentation with MS approaches as part of a
quite broad based and multi-pronged evolutionary process towards the
necessary structures for global governance (my own feeling is that  MS
represents an interesting dead end in that evolution, but time will tell...
 
MBG
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:25 AM
To: 'Bertrand de La Chapelle'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand


B:
Yes, this is helpful. We agree on a lot. MS does not mean a particular
categorization of stakeholder groups, this is an important clarification.
And I am glad to see that you understand that individual participation
allows the representation of viewpoints and not necessarily of groups of
people. We also agree that global public interest is not aggregation of
national interests. 
 
So fundamentally, we are in agreement on the important issue, which is that
the multistakeholder-ization of existing intergovernmental institutions is a
step in the direction of new institutions and not an end in itself. I am
sorry if I shocked those who have developed a strong rhetorical commitment
to the MS-word, but given that MS itself is not a viable model of global
governance and does not answer the profound question of what kind of new
institutions will supplant the state-based ones, I think we will pay the
price, sooner or later, if we don't make that distinction. 
 
My emphasis on the individual does not mean that I favor holding
nation-state style elections for every internet decision or (God forbid)
every policy decision in every sector. Nor do I blieve in a globalized
legislature or executive - that is just the transposition of the
nation-state model to a level that does not scale. I do believe that
democratic forms could be profitably applied in specific contexts, such as
e.g. the ICANN Board, but I suspect that a viable system of global
governance will minimize its reliance on elections and other forms of
collective action and seek to pave the way for coordinated forms of
decentralizsation and freedom, while seeking to maintain some kinds of
collective accountability and rights protection against abuses. 
 
One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that it
seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. It
drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance and
pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. It seems to imply
that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and solve all
problems. But that it isn't consistent with what we know about human nature,
and free expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish a
controversial message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective
assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area,
imho, is precisely to shield groups and individuals from unwanted
"governance" by others. 
 
--MM
 

  _____  

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand


Dear all, 

Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities
around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be
clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on
this topic.

"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five
...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society,
business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach,
"multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO
(International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of
governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective
structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this
way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often
prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and
"stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a
broader and more diverse notion. 

"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as
meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be
they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding
therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that
this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the
possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder
governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with
its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established
structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and
decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. 

The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision
shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can
represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are
contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific
representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they
really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope
?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so
because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue.
The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive
manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake
in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed
country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for
youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken
into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such
communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different
interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and
established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play
here. .

This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this
context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of
the paragraph  :

MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely
intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance.
In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is
- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial
division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil
society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. 


Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of
global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into
separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is
why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three
"Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right
for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate
manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a
stake in (is impacted by or concerned with). 

However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily
meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their
own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe
that the future of global governance is the generalization at the
international level of the kind of representative democracy that already
reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals
of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution.

This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that
individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse
interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes
conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives
carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To
take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country
to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions,
and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But
conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a
whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert
some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the
employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important
effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact
their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to
participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is
taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert
participation.  Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact
several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A
major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the
mere aggregation of national public interests. 

In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental
representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of
"multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to
explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can,
collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop
and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in
the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should
vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.   

This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting,
issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of
consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and
enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this
discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is
one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory
discussion can actually take place. 

I hope this helps move the discussion forward. 

Best

Bertrand

PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis.
  


On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:





 Second, We


need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for
good governance and appropriate institutions; 



I don't understand why. 


MS is at best a


transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental
toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this
progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is
- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the
artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government,
business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual
that matters. 



I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance.
Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not
necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here
concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put
it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective
dimensions of it.
The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this
collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and
replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each
other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political
rule-making to me.
jeanette

jea 

In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers


the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is
used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow
does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but
not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately.

________________________________________ From: Parminder
[parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To:
Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy
Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance]
REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

Jeanette and Bertrand,

First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open
consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed
countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have
forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal
point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am
sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be
because of this procedural part.

However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my
'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned
interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but
the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can
hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'.
Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper
analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are
interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder
nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them
'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage,
and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in
this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not
have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations?
Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And
why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement
friendly and  not developed countries?

Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is,
therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand
that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities
for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control
over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with
stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global
domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is
little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great
advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off
excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping
the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing
countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political
domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls
within their own territories.

Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many
developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive
role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy
regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place
holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering
the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community
supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society
(dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also
have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of
IGF, with no consideration to the fact that

1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy
making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to
which it does so.

2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make
recommendations where necessary.

I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following
assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive
issue in the email.



para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the
continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly
revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get
into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and
operational organization of the Forum.



In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss
more than the Yes or >No question.



Section 74 of TA reads

"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options
for the convening of the Forum ..........'

and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized
structure that would be subject to periodic review".

Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate
the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational
organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change.

In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it
closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds
(things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda,
some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more
effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is
made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc).

I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to
get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable
the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there
is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review
debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is
needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and
sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive
changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in
fact, into the oblivion.

Parminder


Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all,

Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking
of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a
different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up
to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report
give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not
that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some
governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more
vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening
MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations
really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first
assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the
proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is
all.

I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of
discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in
Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD.

The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet
Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG,
which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of
the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments
only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important
role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been
organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process
(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions
"the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of
the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation
Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the
administrative and operational organization of the Forum.

In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss
more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize,
which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD,
because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only
the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for
ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the
possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how
to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental
multi-stakehoder nature.

The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to
preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF.

Best

Bertrand

-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour
la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information
Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting

humans") ____________________________________________________________ 

 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





-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100225/a727aff9/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