Multistakeholderism and Public Policy: (was) RE: [governance]

[Jeanette Hofmann]

On 08.11.2010 23:54, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> I fear that Avri ("I believe that the multistakeholder model...") and
> Jeanette ("multistakeholderism...is useful in "nailing jello to a wall") are
> lapsing into arguments based on faith (Avri) and hope (Jeanette),

This is probably a misunderstanding.
(I'll
> leave off discussing who here is advocating "charity" ie.
> multistakeholderism turning its attention to the burdens of supporting
> service for the unserviced).
>
> Since neither of them nor others have chosen to answer my rather simple and
> straightforward question:

Perhaps you just not recognize our replies as answers? To somewhat 
overstate my point, the "broader public interest" you are referring to 
is a fiction. It does not exist as a clearly delimitable concern that 
could serve as a benchmark for assessing methods of representation.

jeanette
>
>>>> 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.
>
> ... The answer is that from my observation there has been little or no
> progress in this area at the global level. In fact, given the more or less
> complete absence of support for even the slight progress that was made in
> WSIS, in the recent ITU/UNESCO Broadband report (see my blogpost on this)
> arguably the international multistakeholder activity has simply provided a
> cover for the evident inaction.
>
> Meanwhile the quite considerable progress that has been made in this area
> has all occurred at the national level as a result of the actions of
> governments responding to national political/representative forces among
> others ... E.g. the entrance into the constitution of Costa Rica and Finland
> of a right to the Internet, legislation in various countries affirming and
> supporting universal Internet access as a necessary goal (France, Spain, New
> Zealand)and very widespread movements on the part of a number of governments
> (Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia among others) to extend Internet/broadband
> access to the entire population. Of even more importance has in fact been
> the actions on the ground driven by commercial and consumer forces to extend
> mobile/Internet access to huge numbers of previously unconnected.
>
> I too feel that there is a need at the global level for some form of
> "Internet governance" and specifically to help to define, enhance and where
> necessary enforce the broad global public interest. But I don't think that
> that this can be based on either faith, hope or charity.
>
> Rather it needs, from the CS perspective, to be based on a clear
> definition/articulation of what is the (global) public interest in the areas
> being discussed in IG and then the mobilization of the broad coalition of
> those working to support the public interest first to develop transparent
> and inclusive frameworks within which those interests can be articulated and
> then to develop the means for ensuring that the public interest so defined
> becomes both the global and the local reality.
>
> Mike Gurstein
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:45 PM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8 Nov 2010, at 07:59, parminder wrote:
>
>> (this is why I asked how substantive policies can be ever developed
>> through these models and i dont think I got the response.)
>
>
> I had not understood this question properly.
>
> And of course, I am not sure if I do yet.
>
> Are you asking: "How can use a stakeholder model on issue beyond CIR since
> that have never been used on other areas beyond CIR before?"
>
> Or put another way: "Please prove that that the multistakeholder model will
> work for things other than CIR?"
>
> For the many reasons I have argued, that are not topic dependent, I believe
> that the multistakeholder model is a viable method of deepening democracy
> along the lines of representation+participation+advocacy.
>
> While these democratic multistakeholder models are new in the area of CIR,
> they are even newer in other areas.  and while I think I understand why the
> ontogeny of these models is CIR related, I see no barrier to the basic model
> being applied in other areas to the advantage of the world's peoples.
>
> However, at the moment they are still the only models I see that take us
> beyond simple trust in the most basic of democratic forms - trusting our
> sometime representative governments and the IGO that the bureaucrats from
> those nations create. My advocacy is for the use of various forms of
> multistakeholder model in any and all policy issues.  The modalities f the
> model with vary with implementation and with topic area, as will the mix of
> stakeholders
>
>>
>> On 08.11.2010 09:29, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Although I like Jeannette's answer quite a bit, I would like to ad
> something.
>
> I think that we see a lot of representation of those interests in this very
> caucus.  From IT4Change projects and their  championing of the people in the
> areas around Bangalore and in India in general, in the APC membership of
> local organizations that deal with all sorts of issues that relate to the
> poor and to the marginalized populations, to your advocacy in terms of the
> people involved in telecenters, the consumer groups that have gotten
> invovled in almost all organizations,  etc...   And this is just one of the
> civicl society groups. In some cases the presentation of interests comes by
> participation of groups such as the International Red cross in various
> organizations like ICANN. In some cases these interests are represented by
> those who work in the foundation created by the megacorps.  And of course to
> some extent those population are represented by the representation democracy
> in the democratic countries.
>
> Again with my constant proviso that there is further to outreach and more
> groups to be brought in, the point is that there is a constant elevation of
> the interests of the many in a multistakeholder organization.  That advocacy
> is somewhat fluid and is more likely to represent the interests of a
> population that the populations directly, but on occasion, especially with
> groups like APC for example, as far as I understand, the local populations
> have  a lot to say about the positions their umbrella groups take.
>
> So the broader public interests are being represented by the amalgam of
> those who participate and advocate.  and the mode direct participation we
> get at various layers of the efforts, the better off we will be.
>
> So again, I apologize for taking this theoretical approach, but I still see
> no other model than the multistakeholder model to further the interests of
> the many in a deepening od democracy by combining the
> representation+participation+advocacy.  What we still need to do is to learn
> how to make that model work in many situation beyond CIR where it has had it
> first real test.  I see establishing this model, in various modalities to be
> a primary requirement for future success of civil society's goals.  And thus
> I advocate for it.
>
> a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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