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

[parminder]

David,

Very much agree. The purpose of MSism (multistakeholderism) should first 
be clear (because the method also depends on that) - basically to 'make 
public policy' or to obtain greater engagement of all affected parties 
in development of public policy. The two are different things. However, 
and I have raised this question often here, those who most solidly 
profess MSism have generally not been forthcoming in this matter. (And 
to clarify, 'technical policy making' within narrow pulbic policy 
defined remits is to be seen as different from larger, substantive 
public policy making.)

Only after we know about the purpose can we come to methods. But as you 
have seen from the recent conversations, there is reluctance to discuss 
even the 'methods' by upholders of IG variety of MSism. And yes, 
democratic ideals and norms remain the ulitimate test to evaluate both 
the purpose and methods.

parminder


On Saturday 23 March 2013 08:26 PM, David Allen wrote:
> This was put forward as basis to specify the mission:
>
> On Mar 22, 2013, at 3:39 AM
>
>> ...
>> the lack of clear principles on methodology
>> ...
>
> Method is always important - but the discussion has been about 
> purpose.  Before method.
>
> For a reason.  A folksy saying reminds:  "If we don't know where we 
> are going, any road will take us there ..."
>
> First, we establish purpose.  Only after purpose is clear, then method 
> may figure out how we get to that objective.  Otherwise, ...
>
>
> The second blogpost goes straight to the question of purpose.
>
> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/
>
> The question, in a nutshell, to define purpose:  What role may MS 
> possibly have in a democracy?
>
> Certainly not MS as a replacement - not, as for instance, the stance 
> of the US exiting WCIT, in Kramer's sign-off.
>
> MS, not as the policy-making mechanism.
>
> Rather - perhaps - as a means toward greater engagement, within a 
> democracy, as that second blogpost discusses.
>
> Policy is set by, and reserved to, democratic means.
>
>
> With, then, perhaps some clarity on purpose for MS - method can become 
> the topic.
>
> ______
>
>
> The eventual discussion of method, premature now, found fodder - 
> nonetheless - in the below:
>
> So, let's say it again:
>
> “… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 
> people in the entire world …"
>
> Sizes of the stakeholder groups are most starkly lopsided.  Their 
> constituencies, T/A compared with the other three.  Different by a 
> number of orders of magnitude.  T/A is in the thousands.  CS / 
> business / governments are in the hundreds of millions, billions.
>
> Starting with the facts is the first step.
>
> Then, after the stark lopsidedness, representation.  How would these 
> three, or four, tribes represent each of their groups?  Who will?
>
> The standard:  Hard-won democratic governance has developed strenuous 
> procedures for elections.  In cases - for an example - where a society 
> has yet to learn / adopt suitable procedures, international observers 
> arrive and oversee election processes.  To insure fair representation.
>
> Then, to suppose representation via a club of 'usual suspects,' 
> perhaps three or four times a few dozen - a hundred or so in total - 
> points at some of the worst of tribal outcomes.  Clubby, elitist 
> control of power, where mutual back-scratching proscribes serious 
> critical analysis.  Where interests served become private and 
> individual, not the public interest.  Such has been, across history, 
> the path to some of the most despised outcomes.
>
> David
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:56 PM:
>
>> Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the usual suspects 
>> from each of these communities, and that makes it a few dozen each.
>>
>>
>> On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen
>>> <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu 
>>> <mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>>>> The T/A definition from its focal point:
>>>> "... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical
>>>> organizations/people who run it."
>>>>
>>>> Which is the starting point for doing the counting.
>>>
>>> ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable
>>> candidates would be closer to 30-40.
>>>
>>> I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well.
>>>
>>> If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov
>>> SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it
>>> were more than 30-40 from each SG.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130324/f7787b32/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