[governance] RE: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model"

[michael gurstein]

Thanks for this John... I have a couple of comments which are rather to do
with MSism overall rather than the below which is good as far as it goes...
and given their nature I think they are perhaps worth circulating to the
large Governance list.

The first is that the MS model in itself is exclusive/exclusionary in that
many potential/useful/even necessary voices aren't included for a variety of
reasons--they don't know about the process, they don't have the
(language/conceptual/technical etc.) skills/confidence/technology to
participate.  In these instances a the "passive" MS model doesn't work since
what is needed is a pro-active engagement which animates/enables the
non-participant and thus gives them the means to contribute... There are I
know, a lot of issues with this and to a degree the above goes to the heart
of the MS approach but it remains a very very (and to my mind potentially
lethal limitation of MSism etc.

The second is that the model is one that strives for/even requires
"consensus"...  That being the case there are tremendous incentives towards
consensus and equally if not more significant, disincentives against
divergence/conflict.  While in some instances consensus is desireable and
useful it is not something on which one can build unless one chooses to try
to artificially bury/bulldoze dissenting/diverging voices and
non-commensurable interests (which in the real world in many many and not
insignificant issues are necessary...

I think it is important to recognize the difference between "consensus" as
in everyone finding a basis of agreement and for example, brokerage where
there are tradeoffs between conflicting positions or as another example
where there is a simple agreement to disagree (the notion of the loyal
opposition for example... and where the political democratic process allows
time for the evolution of dominant/majority positions for example.

I had a very useful discussion yesterday with Constance Bomellier on this
issue and what I realized in the course of the discussion is the degree to
which the MS model is at its core, its very DNA a techie's/engineer's model
with its impatience with complexity and "fuzziness", it's belief that there
are single simple solutions to very complex problems (and diverse
interests), its drive for a single simple outcome when many outcomes have to
be seen as iterative, long term and even self-reflexive processes.

I don't deny the value of the MS model for technical issues, but I see
extreme danger in an unthinking and uncritical stampede toward MSism in
policy areas way way beyond the technical as is so evident here at the IGF.

Rough consensus and running code would not have allowed for the long term
process that overcame child labour, created the public health measures that
conquered typhus, nor would it have ended slavery. Whether it can ensure an
open, transparent, equitable, rule of law based and human rights protecting
Internet for all is to my mind a very very open question and certainly
something to be discussed rather than assumed.

When challenged here at the IGF and elsewhere, the proponents of the MS
model indicate that of course, MSism is a constituent element of democratic
governance...

I'm still waiting for anyone to give a coherent explanation of what that
relationship is in a practical sense.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:16 PM
To: michael gurstein
Subject: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement
model"

I would be interested in your suggestions, comments, edits.
/John

=== One view of the "multistakeholder engagement model"

. Open and Inclusive: Discussions are open to all and structured to
encourage the broadest range of relevant inputs from all interested parties.
Input provided is valued and heard by all. All documents are freely
available online. Processes for public comment and remote participation are
provided wherever feasible, and without requirements for participation other
than decorum.

. Consensus-based: Discussions allow for all views to be considered and
addressed, leading towards common understanding and consensus among
participants. Discussions are structured to avoid domination by any
community of interest.

. Transparent and Accountable: Processes for discussions and decision-
making are documented, publicly available, and followed. Easily accessible
records of decisions and the materials used for reaching those decisions are
provided. Due process is provided to appeal decisions where processes were
not followed. 


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