[governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture

[michael gurstein]

Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified
"stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process. I don't think/see "experts"
or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders
i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of
stakeholders. Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the
activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments,
the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I
understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their
grouping.

 

But others might disagree.

 

M

 

From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and
Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture

 

This is a very helpful framing Michael.  All of these issues related to
legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and
refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome.  But I'm
curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have
historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not
have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for
organizations.  My sense is that these categories of civil society
participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces
you describe for other elements of civil society.

On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

 

One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG
post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet
governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador,
ISOC and someone who identified themselves as  speaking from civil society.

 

Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is
discussed and blogged
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/wcit-lots-of-losers-but-guess-who-
won/>  there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that
Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without
an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism".

 

There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through
multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet
governance. 

 

As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other,
for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet
governance processes and their outcomes.

 

The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved
there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these
processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. 

 

One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly
recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as
"apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily
conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade
associations, political interests or public relations firms".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf

 

Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this
instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined:
"Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder)
agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the
commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry
or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is
a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... "

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

 

I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such
astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring)
and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear
to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as
non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests.

 

For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role
in independently representing the public interest some effective means will
need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these
processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither
captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised
"multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn,
lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy.

 

Mike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121223/871b2cc5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t