[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sun Nov 7 18:12:34 EST 2010
A/the problem with a multistakeholder approach is that it is essentially
"interest based" i.e. it is based on reflecting/enabling those with specific
and direct "interests" in a policy issue to participate in the policy making
process; while ignoring/disabling the opportunity for those with more
diffused involvements/interests from direct participation.
The health care debate in the US is a very good example here as it has in
fact operated on an essentially multistakeholder platform. The medical
industry, unions, corporations, bigPharma, even the AARP (retired persons)
have all been involved in the discussion but who represented the 40 million
uninsured apart from a few ELECTED representatives/legislators?
The same has to be said about IG... It is fairly evident that those with
specific "interests" are well represented as stakeholders, and in this
instance even nation states have had a role (in the global sphere states
would appear to have accepted a role as "interested" but not determining
parties). But in the area of IG who is representing the broader public
interest (certainly not a very narrowly based and non-representative in any
sense, CS)--including for example, those with no or limited access; those
for whom access is unavailable or highly restricted because of geography,
disability or cost; or those with access but who are lacking in the
opportunity to make effective use of that access in support of better living
circumstances for themselves and their families and communities.
These questions are neither rhetorical nor theoretical but in fact go to the
very heart of our and IG activties overall.
Mike Gurstein
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 9:09 PM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Hi,
The health care stmt was just an example to show, that personally I do
support government action, especially on the local level. I will avoid
getting in to Off Topic details on what I think specifically on this topic.
Yes, I would like to see a multistakeholder process in the US on deciding
all policy issues (including health care). In fact, again just as example,
when I had the opportunity to discuss a particular state's (US definition of
state) build out of broadband within that state, I proposed a specifically
tailored multistakeholder model. I see this model of policy making as the
next step in democracy; multistakeholder model of policy creation is a form
of representational democracy + participatory democracy. And I see it as
something we are still learning about.
Now you have added another topic, full consensus. I support idea of
rough/near consensus, not full consensus. But that would be another long
topic on what that means and how that is achieved in a multistakeholder
environment - another field in which we are still growing in experience.
Sorry my model was not specific enough. I propose a decentralized model
that includes the groups that are already working on issues and avoids
creating new centralized monoliths, though I do add the notion of appeals
and arbitration mechanisms. It is a model of step wise refinement, and
model that includes the many things we see happening already in the 'IG
grid' (i thought grids were an older model, but I don't mind the term, i
like grids as long as they are not 2 dimensional).
I must note, that I was spoken to sternly, though privately, for wasting the
group's time with theoretical discussions when real stuff was happening an
real stuff needed to be decided. So I will stop now.
a.
On 7 Nov 2010, at 05:34, parminder wrote:
> Avri,
>
> Thanks for your detailed response. A few responses/ questions for the
> present.
>
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> (BTW, a true practice of this ideology should entail giving up of
>>> all government provided benefits and protection, for the purpose of
which ,in the present circumstances, maybe taking up residence in Southern
Afganistan will be the best exemplar. Such an experience may be quite
insightful.)
>>>
>> Not my position, man. e.g. I want a government led/regulated single
>> payer health system in the US.
>>
> I am happy to hear that. But do you have a particular reason why US's
> health policy should not be decided only in completely open forums ,
> which are fully multistakeholder, only if we get complete consensus,
> also fully involving health insurance companies and drug companies who
> must completely agree too? I am of course picking up from, what
> appears to me, is your preference for such a model for global IG. If
> not so, can you please again explain how policies get made in your
> model.
>
> I really do not understand it. Isnt US gov like all other govs based
> on an imperfect representational system, which we shd continuously try to
improve, *but not an the expense of creating a policy making vacuum*.
>
> Further, you asked is your governance model 'specific enough'.
> Really, but I did not see any governance model for making global policies
there. (CIRs is not what I am taking about.) I mean, can you tell me how I
can have democratically negotiated cyber security treaties rather than done
by the OECD and forced on others, same with Internet related issues included
in ACTA, and much more is slated to come. All this will be pushed through
FTAs on non OECD countries. Many policies and preferences of the West just
come through technology models - and we take it or leave it, such is the
global might of the involved tech companies, who of course do much more
carefully listen to US gov and stronger European countries.
>
> You think we need health policies but not Internet policies? Again,
> any particular reason? parminder
>
>> But you do a good job of arguing ad absurdum. Be careful though.
>> When one argues the ad absurdum, I have found, there is always
>> someone you can convince with your absurd argument. Just look at
>> recent US elections, people can be convinced of anything at times.
>> But that's representational democracy. I digress.
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> > Any system systematically developing and enforcing public policies
>>> > is in effect a government. we can have a good - more inclusive,
transparent, accountable, progressive etc - government or governance system,
or a bad one.
>>>
>> I disagree that governance is the province of governments. Any
>> governance system can and should go beyond the governments. First, all
governments are just local affairs for some definition of local, with no
world government either in existence or in the offing. Further, governments,
the best of which have a strong representative democracy - and there are few
that meet this criteria, are just touching the tip of what it means to be
democratic. True democracy builds its base on the representative 1 person 1
vote (though some are still just 1 man 1 vote, or just 1 landowner 1 vote
...) model, but goes far beyond that into participatory democracy.
Representative democracy may be the foundation of democracy, but it does not
provide a full edifice for full democracy.
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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=
____________________________________________________________
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