[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sun Nov 7 18:51:17 EST 2010
Avri,
I wasn't talking about the stakeholders themselves but rather about the
multistakeholder process where adherence/participation in the process is a
result of a fairly specific "interest" in the outcome. I'm sure that various
of the stakeholders have other interests as well but it isn't clear to me
how or if these are being/to be articulated as the policy process moves
forward.
But the key question in my note which I would appreciate an answer to from
yourself or any of the others who are advocating for multistakeholderism
remains
> 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.
Tks,
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 7:30 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Hi,
I actually do not thing the interests are as narrow and focused as you
think. Again with the proviso that there is a long way to go.
Many of the participants have wider interests, consumer protection,
sustainable development, human rights or many flavors, development, etc.,
with IG just being one of the areas that they are engaged in. Very few are
internet types who are also concerned with IG.
Yes, the topic is focused, IG, but I believe that for many of the
participants, even in this small corner of the debate, the actual interest
is much wider, just that this space focuses on a single topic.
a.
On 7 Nov 2010, at 18:12, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 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=
____________________________________________________________
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