[I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Nov 27 01:31:45 EST 2013
On Tuesday 26 November 2013 03:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> George
>
> Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues
> and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that
> constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand.
>
> The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed
> representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity
> called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the
> members of the steering committees for the conference,
>
I dont think such an authority was ever give to 1net.... Though there
seems to have been a strong attempt to claim it - so strong that many
people thought they already had it . parminder
> and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these
> steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups.
>
> Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the
> conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of
> substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those
> of us exclusively interested in substan
>
> tive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees.
>
> In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be
> settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive
> issues.
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *George
> Sadowsky
> *Sent:* Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM
> *To:* Deirdre Williams
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian;
> bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa;
> internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T.
> Tamanikaiwaimaro
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a
> multi-stakeholder environment
>
> Deirdre, and all,
>
> Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider
> shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from
> stakeholder membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to
> phrase it. (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it
> should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.)
>
> Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a
> number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I
> really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How
> can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive
> manner?
>
> We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more:
>
> - the IGC list,
>
> - the BestBits list,
>
> - the ISOC policy list, and
>
> - the new 1Net coordination list.
>
> Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see
> the same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above.
>
> With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the
> above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable
> solution. [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this
> point in the discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply
> because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this
> purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and
> more focused and used for other purposes also.
>
> If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response
> significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of
> the four lists.
>
> IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which
> vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that
> have to do with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on
> an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more
> inclusive and more positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy
> is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal
> point that's important here.
>
> Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms?
>
> George
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
>
>
> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by
> Michael Gurstein
>
>
> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE
> REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society
>
> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread
>
>
> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder
> environment
>
> begun by George Sadowsky.
>
> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues?
>
> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point
> was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at
> a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his
> children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have
> to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are
> incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be
> questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making
> the same point. Civil society is us - all of us.
>
> Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another
> could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no
> one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain
> a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the
> multiple aspects of those issues.
>
> Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS
> was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different
> types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the
> challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight
> the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation.
> Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead
> of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power
> struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of
> trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further
> excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out
> in a wave of personalities and accusations.
>
> We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together,
> we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process,
> but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be
> viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these
> threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed
> before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on
> abstract external factors. And together we will be able to
> disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a
> point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians,
> business and society.
>
> Deirdre
>
> On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com
> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> _Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal
> opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I
> am affiliated._
>
> <<snip>>
>
>
>
> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to
> see if any of them resonate with any of you.
>
> _First_, I believe that the introduction of the idea of
> multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect
> between the Internet technical community and the community that
> has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I
> recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably
> intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only
> to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to
> exploit it for social and economic benefits.
>
> The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from
> the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize.
> Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone,
> visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments
> on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined.
> Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others'
> opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered.
>
> _Second_, I believe that the specific role of the Internet
> technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of
> participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly
> understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a
> very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully
> the implications of policies that have to do with Internet
> administration, operation and governance, one has have a good
> technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be
> at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the
> Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to
> study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating
> about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of
> broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be
> discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long
> term, or both.
>
> In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus,
> but it is extremely important.
>
> _Third_, I believe that one result of formalized
> multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of
> people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of
> examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet
> technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to
> enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved
> representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage
> their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet
> technical community are people, and many are very likely to have
> beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by
> those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder
> approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or
> even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding
> issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of
> recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a
> focus on inter-stakeholder group separation.
>
> _Fourth_, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term
> "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is
> now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if
> individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that
> agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual
> rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society
> goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate
> that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are
> generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon
> pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably
> government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of
> the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as
> it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being
> siloed.
>
> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all
> people in the world and remove government involvement, the private
> sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional
> influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the
> rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions
> of most of us as individuals.
>
> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or
> stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may
> work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other
> public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly
> users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate
> of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the
> people who are now labeled as being in the civil society
> stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of
> our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as
> we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG
> is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger
> space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society
> positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the
> various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite
> intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships
> between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the
> underlying reality,
>
> _I conclude_ that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted
> to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant
> negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to
> assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is
> retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and
> understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and
> can exploit the positive aspects of that approach.
>
> This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has
> helped me to understand some of the roots of the often
> unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of
> issues important to civil society and technical community experts
> guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the
> time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any
> discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have
> presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of
> some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced
> discussion can and will come later.
>
> Your comments are welcome.
>
> George
>
> <<trimmed>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131127/45fce330/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list