[governance] More (yawn) regulatory swing doors... US FCC...

[Norbert Bollow]

Hi Riaz

I think that all forms of multistakeholderism are supposed to be
"deliberative multistakeholderism". (Is there any other kind?) The
challenges are about preventing the deliberative processes from
breaking down, which can happen in various ways. For example it can
happen by not having a sufficient breadth of perspectives represented.

In regard to inclusion, I think what is meant with inclusiveness
of governance systems is all stakeholders who are potentially
affected by the decisions that are made can get their concerns
and viewpoints appropriately taken into consideration. This
inclusiveness is *not* supposed to come with a requirement to actually
use the technical system that is the subject of the governance
process. For example, even if a stakeholder wants to use a domain name
system that allows multiple different registries for the same TLD to
exist, and thereupon creates and uses such a system, that stakeholder
can still participate in ICANN deliberative processes.

Greetings,
Norbert

** Acronyms used:
TLD=Top Level Domain
ICANN=Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Riaz Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Norbert.
> 
> MS certainly is an innovative approach. However to your categories we
> must add the issue of deliberative multistakeholderism... where it is
> not just the contest of interests - bargaining - but reasoned
> argument - deliberation - so as to harness the diversity of views to
> maximise success.
> 
> That MS does not take this imbalance, formal equality has its limits,
> as real is a concern - particularly since BigCorporates organise at
> this level as well - it is not a matter of excluding them, but
> ensuring systems to ensure that this assymetry of power is dealt with
> through democratic countermajortarian principles. But with legitimacy
> treated lightly, the prospects of this seem dim.
> 
> Then there is the fetish with inclusion. It is not regarded as
> ambivalent, but always good. Sometimes in democratic process
> exclusion may be preferable, for eg those who refuse to participate
> (as different from engaging with) in ICANN.
> 
> Just some thoughts...
> 
> Riaz
> 
> 
> On 14 May 2013 13:55, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> > Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > How does MS take this intimacy into account?
> > >
> > > Weekend Edition May 10-12, 2013
> > > <
> > http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/10/another-industry-crony-at-the-fcc/print
> > >
> >
> > Generally speaking, I think much of the support for
> > multistakeholderism is not nearly cautious enough about potential
> > problems of this kind, and the same can be said about most models
> > of multistakeholder governance that are being proposed.
> >
> > For a more in-depth discussion, we need to distinguish between
> > (attempts at) what might be called "representative
> > multistakeholderism" (example of which are MAG, ECWG,…) and "open
> > multistakeholderism" (e.g. IETF, the RIRs,…).
> >
> > With "representative multistakeholderism" I mean groups in which a
> > limited number of seats are distributed to representatives of
> > particular stakeholder categories who are then assumed to bring a
> > reasonable approproximation of the totality of perspectives of that
> > stakeholder category into the discussion.
> >
> > With "open multistakeholderism" I mean settings which are open to
> > anyone coming in and fully participating. The assumption is that
> > this set of self-selected participants will bring reasonable
> > approproximation of the totality of perspectives into the
> > discussion.
> >
> > In representative multistakeholderism, the selection processes are
> > obviously critically important. The problem of potentially
> > inappropriate "intimacy" now exists not only between government
> > officials and lobbyists, but potentially also in regard to the
> > selection processes, and in addition all stakeholder group
> > representatives need to train themselves to avoid being
> > inappropriately influenced.
> >
> > In open multistakeholderism, the risk does not occur that
> > viewpoints may get excluded because those who have power over the
> > selection processes might want to suppress them, or might be unduly
> > influenced e.g. by lobbyists to exclude people who happen to
> > represent inconvenient viewpoint.
> >
> > However it is still possible (and it certainly happens) that
> > viewpoints may get suppressed in other ways. Mechanisms of such
> > suppression include personal attacks, telling people that certain
> > topics (which are inconvenient to some group) should not be
> > discussed because they're so divisive or whatever, etc. It may be
> > necessary to have posting rules and tell people to avoid kinds of
> > postings, such as postings containing personal attacks, or postings
> > that effectively say "topic X should not be discussed". Such
> > posting rules do not constitute censorship, but quite the opposite.
> > Censorship is an attempt to suppress (by means of control of
> > communication media) the dissemination of some category of factual
> > information and/or to suppress discussion of some category of
> > topics. Reasonable posting rules aim to prevent such suppression
> > from happening through interpersonal and group dynamic pressure.
> >
> > Even though IGC is designed to be a civil society entity, the
> > diversity of civil society within itself is great enough that the
> > considerations of the above paragraph are already fully applicable
> > to this list...
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> > ** Acronyms used:
> > MAG=Multistakeholder Advisory Group
> > ECWG=Enhanced Cooperation Working Group
> > IETF=Internet Engineering Task Force
> > RIR=Regional Internet Registry


-- 
Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept

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