[governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Feb 27 02:28:19 EST 2010
Dear Bertrand
As always your response is so engaging, and so full of ideas, that I
cant but engage :). So, sorry for another email. I will respond in 3-4
parts since there are so many different issues you raise.
Let me first refocus on the issue that I raised in my email. I am *not
against MS-ism in the democratic governance framework*. Rather to the
contrary, I am very much involved with such MS-ism it at all levels that
my organization works. I am against what I call as *neolib MS-ism or
post-democratic MS-ism*.
In this relation I speak of the role of big business organized
principally on share capital, which is increasingly and in systematic
ways being made more and more fluid and easily transferable (in which
process ICTs have an important role, but that is a different story) and
thus increasingly being divorced from human closeness and thus from
human qualities. This is very well known in economic theories/
literature. Shareholders trade shares, almost always, solely on their
dividend earning capacity and potential, and companies are run to keep
share values high.
You seem to agree to this when you say the following
>I agree that today, corporate governance is too often about
responsibility to shareholders only, as if companies >were mere
financial black-boxes, and people should only care about how much money
is put in and how much >comes out. The current stock-market driven
perception of corporations and the related social pressures are a
>disgrace to the spirit of entrepreneurship.
I am dealing with things as they exist - which part you seem to agree
with - and not as you or others may idealise them. As long as big
business indeed is organised in this manner - and all the evidence
points to the direction that it is increasingly even more organized in
this manner (do you have any evidence to the contrary) - I dont see why
they should have a seat at policy making table. The fact that their
resources are many times more than any other actor on the table makes
them able to skew any ostensibly 'open' process even more to their
advantage further vitiates the processes of mutlistakeholderism, as it
is often practiced. I can give any number of examples of this, at global
- including IG related, and national levels.
A very large part of civil society, i may even say the major part in
developing countries at least, see MS-ism with suspicion for this
reason. Correspondingly, I find the silences on this issue when MSism is
discussed in IG spaces, including on this list, very problematic.
As governments - including democratically elected ones - need always to
be complemented with elements of deepening democracy, participation,
openness, transparency, stakeholder consultation/ participation,
constitutional and legal systems, judiciary etc, MS talk need always be
accompanied by talk of legitimacy of big business with remote/ fluid/
'inhuman' ownership (and *not the immediately and directly implicated
private players/ enterpreneurs*) at policy tables, the manner in which
they easily dominate heavily, and very often scuttle legitimate
collective political processes, the corresponding requirement for ever
present and ever active counter -measures, assessment of whether such
measures are in fact working etc etc.
In so far this is not done - as the deep silences on these issues in IG
spaces and this list testifies - one would, if unwittingly, only be
playing the game of, and controlled by, the big business. And big
business is right now playing big games, especially at the global
levels, and planning even bigger ones. This is what I call as neolib
MS-ism and post-democratic MS-ism.
Parminder
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> I'm glad to see a high level of awareness and support on this list
> regarding E. Ostrom's work. Some comments inline (another long post,
> sorry :-).
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> Bertrand
>
> Now if Multistakeholderism is Elinor Ostrom style commons
> management, can I please enlist as its enthusiastic supporter :)
>
>
> As Françoise Massit-Follea reminded us, E. Ostrom's key 7 fundamental
> building blocks for Common Pool Resources Governance Frameworks (8 if
> you take into account the possibility of "nested" regimes) are in my
> view extremely adaptable to many issues we are dealing with here,
> particularly the management of critical Internet resources.
>
> I actually have been in contact with Elinor Ostrom no later than last
> week in the context of the upcoming Transparency and Accountability
> AoC review of ICANN and she explicitly confirmed that "Yes, the
> internet domain name system could be productively thought of as a CPR."
>
>
> But the sad fact is that MS-ism which we experience and are
> discussing is not it at all anything close to commons style
> management- rather more often quite to the contrary.
>
> Let me give you a very handy example. Try proposing any commons
> management stuff for the IGF program and see where it goes in the
> MAG - the multistakeholder body. You may know that open source,
> open content, A2K, community networks (also in the last MAG
> meeting) and such topics have fared very badly in such MS
> environments. The whole basis, principles and practises of commons
> management are very different. I dont think it is at all fair to
> present high policy level MS-ism as we experience around us today
> in terms of such commons management.
>
>
> As indicated above, the CPR approach being very appropriate for the
> CIR topic, it could easily be introduced in the program. I believe in
> particular that a workshop would be very appropriate in Vilnius on a
> theme like :
>
> *"The Domain Name System as Common Pool Resource (CPR) : *
> *what consequences for its governance framework ?"*
>
> It would clearly bring new perspectives in a key debate that people
> are now ready to have seriously. If people on this list want to take
> the initiative to organize it (or a similar title), count me in, Id be
> very happy to contribute.
>
>
>
> I took a look at Ostrom's framework of commons resource management
> forwarded by Massit. The very first point deals with 'exclusion',
> and she must have had a very ood reason to do it.
>
> 'Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external
> unentitled parties)'
>
>
> The notion of "exclusion" or "defined parties" is very important and I
> would relate it to the notion of "relevant stakeholders" discussed in
> a previous post. As mentioned earlier, Multi-stakeholder Governance is
> neither about siloed "stakeholder groups" (the dialogue space must be
> unique, even if various groups form to prepare discussions), nor about
> just organized entities (per Karl's remarks : individuals must not be
> excluded in principle).
>
> If, as I believe, MSG is based on "the right for any actor or
> individual to participate, in an appropriate manner, in the governance
> mechanisms dealing with issues they have a stake in or are impacted
> by", then E. Ostrom criteria of defined boundaries is respected. The
> "appropriate manner" in which the different actors participate should
> correspond in some ways to the stake they have in the issue. One could
> even envisage that there also is a duty to participate for actors who
> have an impact on an issue, even if they do not spontaneously want to
> (topic example here in our domain is large social networks,
> conspicuously absent from the IGF).
>
> Of course, the precise modalities need to be more clearly defined. But
> the fundamental affirmation in the first CPR governance principle is
> that governance frameworks work well if there is a sufficient
> delineation of who belongs to an "Action Situation" and who does not.
> The challenge is to make sure that there are no free riders (people
> who should be involved and be subjects to the collective rules of
> "appropriation and provision" but try to stay out to maximize their
> gains), no disenfranchised (actors who should be taken into account
> but are not invited), but also no useless participants (who have no
> direct or indirect stake).
>
>
>
> Is it then that a shareholder (and any proxy of his 'interests')
> from hundreds/ thousands of miles away, who most likely doesnt
> even fully know where and what for exactly his money is invested,
> is to be excluded from 'governance mechanisms'. That is great.
> This makes the MS framework - if still MS it is - very acceptable
> to me.
>
>
> I am afraid a bit of anticapitalist rethoric is carrying you further
> than you want. First of all, because you lump in the same basket the
> predatory practices of heartless financial vultures (they do exist)
> and the perfectly fine, useful and necessary mechanisms through which
> companies do get the money they need to provide their services. You
> can't seriously be treating them in the same way.
>
> Second, because the multi-stakeholder philosophy, if you accept to
> give it some credit, applies potentially as a governance paradigm at
> multiple levels, in a nested manner. Nothing prevents you from using
> this lever towards companies themselves, to encourage/press/force them
> to include their "relevant stakeholders" (customers, employees,
> providers, but also governments, general citizens, etc...) in their
> decision-making processes. Isn't it what trade unions or NGO activists
> are asking in the first place. Your discarding a tool that potentially
> works in your favor is surprising.
>
> A topical example here is the discussion we had in the EuroDiG last
> year and in the workshop on "Governance of Social Media" in Sharm
> regarding the importance of the *large social media sites'* *"Terms of
> Service"*, that basically serve as "the law of the space" (for
> instance the Facebook or YouTube Terms of Service clearly define most
> of what you can and cannot do on this "virtual territory" (ie as long
> as you are within the "frontiers" of the domain name - that is : on
> the closed space of the site).
>
> A multi-stakeholder approach here would point towards such large sites
> associating their users, and maybe other actors, in the refinement of
> these rules instead of drafting them as corporate internal stuff and
> having afterwards to back off because of their customers' (or
> political actors') reactions. Community sites like ebay, facebook and
> others are moving - albeit slowly - in that direction.
>
> I had a very interesting exchange in Sharm with the Prosecutor for the
> State of Sao Paolo who was leading the case regarding Orkut. He was
> very open to the idea for instance of establishing, inside such social
> sites, multi-stakeholder advisory groups (MAGs !) composed of
> representatives from law enforcement agencies, civil rights NGOs,
> users, etc... who would assist the company in the treatment of
> delicate cases of "notice and take down" regarding user-posted content.
>
> To come back to the point further above, I agree that today, corporate
> governance is too often about responsibility to shareholders only, as
> if companies were mere financial black-boxes, and people should only
> care about how much money is put in and how much comes out. The
> current stock-market driven perception of corporations and the related
> social pressures are a disgrace to the spirit of entrepreneurship. And
> yes, entrepreneur is a french word :-)
>
> As a former successful entrepreneur, I can testify that the rationale
> for creating a company is not only financial, but mostly to do
> something you find exciting, provide a service you think people need
> or invent a completely new activity.
>
>
> But first let me ask you, does this principle work to exclude
> large businesses organised over global share capital from MS
> systems, since the interests of such share capital has no real,
> embedded and 'live' interest in any 'issue' at all, which seems to
> be the first requirement for participaiton in the Ostrom's
> framework? If so, we are on the same page. I convert to being a
> full supporter of MSism.
>
>
> Sorry, you lose me here. If you have read E. Ostrom's analysis of
> water systems in various regions, you know that water companies were
> full stakeholders in the corresponding CPR systems regarding the water
> basins. If companies have what she describes as "appropriator rights"
> (ie : are allowed to pump), don't you think that they have an
> "embedded, live interest" in the preservation of the water pool ?
>
> If a large fishing company (maybe with international capital) has
> fishing rights in a zone or for a specific type of fish, don't you
> think they have an "embedded, live" interest in the long-term
> preservation of the fish pool ?
>
> Finally, do you really prefer the government cartel mechanism that
> rules oil resources, to a global governance system for oil resources
> that would include all actors, including oil companies, to ensure
> long-term sustainability, and more stable prices that do not harm
> developing countries ? Let's remember that a significant part of the
> debt burden of africa is an indirect result of the oil shocks that
> forced them to borrow heavily in order to develop exports that could
> cover the higher price of oil.
>
> So, instead of considering that by definition business is the devil
> that should in any case be excluded from any sort of governance
> mechanism, why not consider that MS mechanisms can in fact re-empower
> various actors, including governments, citizens and civil society, to
> make sure that corporations do not escape their responsibilities.
>
>
>
> Also, Ostrom's system has a strong place for commonly evolved
> rules. I have never been able to understand how an MS system - the
> kinds that get spoken of on this list - ever develops any rules at
> all. Would also like to know more in this regard.
>
>
> I have no perfect answer. However, the two embryonic, experimental,
> tentative efforts that the IGF and ICANN represent are in my view the
> two laboratories for discovering how this can be done.
>
> I've repeatedly said that the *IGF's outcome is for a large part its
> format* : an experiment in MS dialogue and MS interaction. It does not
> produce rules yet, but in E. Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and
> Development Framework (IAD), her "Grammar of institutions" helps
> define a unifying syntax (ADICO) for rules, norms and strategies.
> Without delving too much in detail at the moment, my understanding is
> that the IGF currently allows actors to synchronise strategies and
> better avoid prisoner's dilemma type of situations. If the IGF moves
> forward in time and helps shape recommendations, this corresponds to
> the category of norms in the AICO framework (prescriptions without
> sanctions). The difference between a norm and a rule in this approach
> is the so-called OR ELSE (ie : what happens if the collective norm is
> not respected :punition, and enforcement thereof).
>
> It is not the purpose of the IGF to get to any enforcement capacity or
> to develop rules. But ICANN, in a very limited domain, is one of the
> first experiments of a multi-stakeholder international Agency (even
> potential regulator for the "semantic spectrum") with some power to
> sanction (even if it does not use it as it should). this organization,
> with all its faults, is indeed faced with the obligation to design
> decision-making procedures and rule-enforcement mechanisms.
>
> Rather than throwing away the very concept of multi-stakeholder
> governance - the introduction of which in a UN summit declaration the
> IGC should actually consider as its own major success - there is much
> more to gain in trying to build on the fragile experiments to move
> towards whatever future governance framework is needed.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> An important element in this debate would be to introduce the
>> intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in
>> Economics 2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their
>> corresponding governance mechanisms.
>>
>> The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the
>> commons" paper is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we
>> call stakeholders) can develop common governance frameworks for
>> the management of common resources.
>>
>> Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the
>> spirit is clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems
>> as between state regulation of the commons and
>> privatization/market mechanisms.
>>
>> I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all
>> participants in this discussion to read "Governing the Commons
>> <http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Commons-Evolution-Institutions-Collective/dp/0521405998/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267101669&sr=1-3>"
>> and "Understanding Institutional Diversity
>> <http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Institutional-Diversity-Elinor-Ostrom/dp/0691122385/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267101721&sr=1-1>",
>> two of her seminal books on this issue.
>>
>> More on that later when I have thee time.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bertrand
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com
>> <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of
>> possible panaceas, for those are but classes of snake oil
>> that are meant to cure all ills. And Multistakeholder
>> governance (MSG - i think of MS as multiple sclerosis) does
>> not belong in the category.
>>
>> I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself
>> and as a stage in the evolving development of governance
>> systems. It represents progress over the nation-state, bi
>> and multi-lateral modalities. It also moves us beyond the
>> pure top down or pure bottom up models. In its best form it
>> allows for persons, both natural and otherwise, to form into
>> self regulated interest and affinity groupings and allows
>> them, as members of these groups, and with their individual
>> voices, to participate as peers in the critical governance
>> activities, including talk, capacity building, action,
>> regulation and enforcement.
>>
>> I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes
>> this important stage in governance development. I worry
>> mostly that this diminution plays into the hands of those who
>> want to remain in, and bolster the legitimacy of, the older
>> variants of the Westfalian military-industrial sovereign
>> state - whether this is their intention or not.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Who does this and where?
>> > The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending
>> evaluation of the IGF, not as a panacea per se.
>> >
>> >> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we
>> can all agree and solve all problems.
>> >
>> > Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the
>> implications of a forum without binding decision-making
>> capacity here.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > With regard to free expression perhaps although free
>> expression needs rules as well in order to work. Even this
>> list has rules specifying limits of unwanted behavior.
>> >
>> > jeanette
>> >> --MM
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle
>> [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com>]
>> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM
>> >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto: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 i*nstitutional 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 <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>
>> >> <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto: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
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>> >> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>] Sent: Sunday, February
>> >> 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc:
>> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> >> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>>
>> >> To be removed from the list, send any
>> >> message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>> >> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>>
>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>> >> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto: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")
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> <mailto: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")
>
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> 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/20100227/78377cfa/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