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

[David Cake]

	The more I engage in mutli-stakeholder processes, the less I find it resembles some of the criticisms made of it. 
TL;DR - it reads to me as if Michael is comparing an idealised hypothetical version of democracy vs a very outdated version of MSism based only on a select few very technical organisations. 

On 24/10/2013, at 7:08 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 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.

	Of course, this is a real problem - but it is also a real problem with alternatives to multi-stakeholder governance. 
	For example, yes, you need to know about the MS process and have the appropriate skills - but often for alternatives to MS processes, you need to know about, have the skills - and then pass through some form of credentialling processes, often involving significant expense, or the approval of gatekeepers whose agenda differs from yours, such as being selected to join a government delegation or consulting group.

>  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...

	It is certainly true - but rather than taking this as a reason to reject multi-stakeholderism, I think it is simply a reflection of the fact that all good governance requires resources and maintenance. You don't get outreach to potential stakeholders for free. It takes time, effort, and often a lot of smart tactics. Some multi-stakeholder orgs do it well, some do it poorly. Some try quite hard (ICANN certainly devotes quite of resources to it - it is debatable whether they do it effectively, but they certainly try), some don't. But it isn't a flaw in MSism - it is an indication of what is needed to do it well. 


> The second is that the model is one that strives for/even requires
> "consensus"...  

	Striving for consensus is a good thing. 
	Sometimes it is unachievable. A realistic process needs to acknowledge that sometimes 

> That being the case there are tremendous incentives towards
> consensus and equally if not more significant, disincentives against
> divergence/conflict.  

	Sure. But is that so bad compared to the alternatives? Multi-lateralism has incentives towards comparative national advantage at the expense of the best outcome for all. Direct democracy has incentives towards easily explained populist solutions. Any governance method has its biases. 

> 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...

	And in practice, many MS bodies pragmatically recognise that full consensus is often not achievable, and you need other mechanisms when a consensus seeking process doesn't work. Many MS bodies include some sort of mechanism that can resolve some of the difficult to solve issues by a vote (as an ICANN GNSO councillor, I'm very familiar with one such process). 
	Making a workable process that balances all the desirable features of equity, transparency, openness etc with more pragmatic requirements of workability and usefulness is hard. MSism isn't a magic bullet - it gives you some principles to go with, but there are heaps of specific details that have to be decided. And what you end up will inevitably have some flaws. 
	We don't need to have a 'purist' MS model. There can be checks and balances where they are necessary. ICANN, for example, has a multi-lateral government body right there in the middle - the GAC. 

> 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.

	This description of MSism reads very much as if it is equating MSism with the IETF model, or perhaps the RIRs. Now, that would be a bad mistake on its own - the models of MSism governance in ICANN, various ccTLDs, etc are different, and very much not dominated by techies (the strength of MS processes in ICANN etc is getting techies, lawyers, pubic policy people, business folk in the same room talking directly). But the IETF model isn't even clearly a multi-stakeholder one (contributions from all stakeholders are welcome in the IETF, but they come as individuals not stakeholder representatives). 
	It is also very far from my experience that MSism is based around the idea of there being single simple solutions - quite the contrary, MS decision making often openly acknowledges that the problems it needs to be deal with may be complex, multi-disciplinary (finding solutions that work both legally and technically, while satisfying equity, justice and transparency etc requirements).  MS processes are just as capable of acknowledging the need for iterative review as any other - the IETF certainly issues many RFCs that update previous, and ICANN seems to be spend quite a significant portion of its time reviewing itself and its previous decisions. 
	The MS model may have roots in a community of only technical researchers, but so what? The Westminster parliamentary system has its roots in a house of hereditary peers - and both have moved on a long way from where they started. 
	And if you are worried about an unthinking and uncritical stamped - then we need to think more and be more critical. Recognising that MS processes have gone far beyond a technical community only IETF model would be a good start. 

> 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.

	A majority rules, democratic vote, wouldn't have supported a minority scientific viewpoint about the mechanisms by which typhus spread against a prevailing majority view that it originated with 'miasma'. No single model solves all problems. The Multi-Stakeholder model isn't being presented as a model that 

> 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.

	Sure. But presenting a caricatured version of MSism as just being a bunch of techies sitting in a room, while ignoring the very real flaws in the multi-lateral alternatives, isn't helping. 

	Don't just tell us why you think MS models don't match up to a hypothetical idealised model of democracy. But what we actually get instead is democratically elected govts who use multi-lateralism to create processes like the inequitable, closed, non-transparent TPPA process, and surely we can do better than that with a multistakeholder model. Real world MS based models will have flaws, sure - but no one is trying to claim MS models will be perfect, only that we should be able to create MS based processes that will usually be better than the alternatives. 
	Cheers
		David
		(currently an ICANN GNSO councillor, among other hats). 

	
> 
> -----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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131024/17856023/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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