[governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland"

Sat Mar 23 04:56:56 EDT 2013

On Friday 22 March 2013 12:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> I don't see this going anywhere if it's just about blaming others.
> (says he who has been more than happy to throw stones...)
>
> So why not discuss what we think should happen, what's the right
> process.  Starting with what's right for civil society.

Ok, sure, happy to take forward the discussion.

Will begin with Nnenna's lament of "  lack of clear principles on 
methodology.  We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for 
some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and for 
representation. "

It is important we develop some principles for civil society 
representation and selections.

And here I will like to start with  top level issue highlighted in 
Michael's list of questions about the 'role of the focal point'. 
Frequently, based on their recognised work and presence in the area, 
some CS individuals/ organisations are asked by 'authorities' to provide 
civil society representatives as speakers, members of WGs and committees 
and so on. We should have clear principles and guidelines for how anyone 
who is given such a responsibility should carry it out.

Along with other principles for representation and selection, we can get 
a set of guidelines and principles for 'focal points' adopted by the IGC 
as a resolution, and then get then perhaps also adopted by other CS 
networks in the area and have these principles well documented and 
publicized so that everyone in the future do goes by them. That would be 
an important tangible step forward.

I suggest some such principles and guidelines for 'focal points'.

Whenever anyone or any organisation is given the role of 'focal point' 
(or a similar role by another name), such a role needs to be seen as a 
responsibility to be taken on the behalf of civil society, and not as a 
privilege.

Being put into any such role -whatever be the communication from the 
concerned authorities -  should be seen as given the duty to 'organise a 
selection process' and not taken as the privilege 'do the selection'.

The communication about being given such a role should be immediately 
publicised among all civil society networks.

Their may be special circumstances (mostly, shortage of time) that do 
not allow the possibility of organising an ideal selection process 
(basic principles of which are provided elsewhere), in which case some 
ad hoc measures may be used (some principles/ guidelines for which are 
also provided separately), which should however be minimal and reasons 
thereof fully accounted for. Shortage of time should not be used as an 
excuse to avoid organising all aspects of an  'appropriate selection 
process'. As much of the ideal selection process as possible should be 
organised, and as little of it as absolutely required should may 
replaced by ad hoc process(es).

Any ad hoc measures obviously leave some matters to the discretion of 
the concerned person/ organisation. They should however be fully willing 
and available  to have them debated and to defend them. For this 
purpose, all information about such ad hoc matters should be made 
public, unless clear reasons against such transparency can be provided. 
Even for such ad hoc measures, some basic self-guidelines should be 
developed and documented. While the focal point needs to fully justify 
resorting to any and every ad hoc process, all information about them in 
any case should be made publicly available so that others can form an 
independent opinion on them.

Maybe we can also add something to the effect that:

Civil society has strong traditions of a deliberative culture, and 
extreme transparency and accountability. In any post -selections 
discussion it is but normal that some may not agree with some processes 
that were employed, especially if some ad hoc arrangements were involved 
as per above. Any focal point that would have chosen would and should be 
strong enough to stand such critical comments and provide justification 
from its side, and stand by it. While undue personalised comments should 
not be made in such discussions (and will not be accepted in any 
discussions), it is also important that genuine engagement, even 
criticism, of the process should not be construed as personal criticism 
or targeting.

There are other issues but well, the above is one set. More later.

parminder

> And
> respecting that business and the tech community isn't CS and might not
> enjoy the self-flagellation/ridicule we favor :-)  Or, more seriously,
> might have their own reasons for doing things differently.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>> On Friday 22 March 2013 10:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> parminder [22/03/13 10:25 +0530]:
>>>> A most surrpsing statement!! Almost anything can be said, right, when you
>>>> have the winds blowing to back you. By winds I mean the the sheer power of
>>>> the status quo, which, judging by your statement, has given up even the
>>>> pretence of democratic values and norms.... And the civil society is an
>>>> accomplice in its silence.
>>> Either that or you have a view that is in the minority
>> Fortunately, in the civil society we have not yet officially declared a
>> handful as 'the' civil society. And I have a pretty good idea of what  civil
>> society generally makes of these kind of 'captures' as witnessed in the case
>> of the recent tech/acad community related episode...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> - which might not be
>>> quite to your taste, but that can't be helped.
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>

-------------- 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