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

Mon Dec 24 08:23:34 EST 2012

Hi,

Certainly in terms of Civil Society 'advisors' from the developed economies, I think many of us not only went looking for the applications, we the applied and followed up on the applications.   For various reasons we wanted to be at what might have been a critical milestone in Internet governance.  I think many did the fundraising for their own trips, though some were NGO members who had organizational sponsorship.  I think there may have also been some funding directed to some organizations for participants from the developing and least developed economies, but I am not clear on that.  There were also some NGO ITU sector members in attendance. I am not sure how many or how they were funded - I expect it is a mix.

And since it is finger pointing season - my SoI for WCIT

I applied as a part time employee of dotgay LLC, a for profit company that is applying for a gTLD for the LGBTQIA community  [talk about a community with interesting 'who represents whom'  issues]. dotgay sponsored my tour of WTSA, WCIT and ILGA.   Something I discovered on the trip is that in many cases just passing out a  business card that said .gay, was a political act in the UAE.  And as a bizactivist who supports my advocacy activities, that pleased my boss.

BTW my contract with dotgay makes it clear that I remain a multi-denominational free-radical and that 'I say what I say' and they are free to end the relationship if I ever go too far for them. Our views tend to be mostly in harmony, so the relationship works. [And I wonder why I have a hard time finding work.]

I denoted myself as a civil society participant both in the application for a seat on the US Delegation and whenever I was asked, based on both independent activities/affinities and of being a contracted part time volunteer at APC.

I also noted that I was a long time participant and contributor in the Internet technical community.

I do not actually remember ever identifying myself  as a representative of Civil Society or of the Technical Community.

cheers and happy celebrations.

avri

On 24 Dec 2012, at 07:35, Gene Kimmelman wrote:

> So just to follow your logic,  who selects these "advisors/consultants?" I get the impression many select themselves and identify as a civil society group rather thsn being invited to advise a group. Maybe you can clarify?
> michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 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/20121224/d03f9ea1/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