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

[George Sadowsky]

Micheal,

Your observations are pertinent.  Check out workshop 212 at 9:00am tomorrow morning.

George

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WS 212.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 98653 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131024/7e6015a5/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------




On Oct 24, 2013, at 7:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

> 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. 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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