[governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...)

Tue Sep 17 14:21:45 EDT 2013

On 17.09.2013, at 20:22, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
> 
>> On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> 
>>> This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil
>>> society”. My view is that only people and organizations are
>>> qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly
>>> independent of all industry and government interests in regard to
>>> the topic areas on which they engage.
>>> 
>> 
>> This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable 
>> definition.
>> 
>> What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in 
>> organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field
>> (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry --
>> because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very
>> industry should develop.
> 
> Huh???
> 
> I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested that “civil society” should
> decide single-handedly to make the rules for how “industry should
> develop”!

I did not want to imply that. However, we should properly name the subjects.

> Somewhat recently I've started thinking more deeply about how
> multistakeholder processes can be improved, and in that context I've
> come to the conclusion that it will be best to use a model of
> stakeholder categories that that has three relatively strictly defined
> stakeholder categories (“government”, “civil society”, “private
> sector”) plus one broad catch-all “multi/other” category for all
> people and organizations who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the
> first three categories.

My classification would be a bit different (I too, think from time to time how to best define these categories). What I have come to might certainly annoy some, because it's more down to Earth. I too, envision three categories, such as:

1. "Those who know and do it": this is perhaps what you define as "private sector", but I do not necessarily limit it to commercial enterprises, because I believe such definition would be wrong. "those who know and do" are the only people who can provide insights on why things are done this way, how they can be (realistically) changed and which of the ideas other constituencies have are not practical to implement. (for various reasons)

2. "Those who want": these are generally what you define as "civil society" in that they do not actually "do" anything of what they suggest/preach, but who in fact insist something be done certain way (for whatever "public benefit" reasons). The role of this constituency is to provide input for the others on what actually the public wants.

3. "Those who regulate/redistribute": this is what you define as "government". The primary purpose for any government to exists is to regulate and re-distribute the "public" wealth. The role of this constituency in my opinion is in providing the appropriate legal and other framework/environment so that those who want and those who can -- do their things.

Now, thing is, these constituencies always overlap. There is certainly a population out of the "know/do" community that is also part of the "want" community and/or the "government" community. The same with others. This is primarily where our views of the working setup differ.

> 
> In this model, for any particular issue area,
> 
> - “government” is reserved for official representatives of governmental
>  or intergovernmental institutions, i.e. people who are officially
>  authorized to engage in the discourse in the name of such an
>  institution;

Here, the problem is that this ignores the reality. Let's take for example an Internet registry. The registry by itself is an enterprise by your definition, because it is the party who knows and does things. However, the registry is also the "government" of the particular domain in that it defines, sets and enforces the rules in the domain. Models to limit that "power" have been experimented, but experience shows they are not actually successful.

I see your view of "government" is very narrow. But if so, then the "government" category you describe actually has nothing to do with Internet. Or, if it does apply to Internet, it should also apply to say, the bakery business. After all, everyone uses the services of the bakeries. 

Since government types almost never know anything about technology, this is the first category of theorists.

> - “civil society” is reserved for individuals and groups who
>  are independent of government and industry interests in the topic
>  areas in which they engage;

There is no such thing as "independent". Actually, a colleague of mine provided the following possible definition: "I am independent, because nothing depends on me". As it stands, and given my previous comment, this is perhaps the "independence" part of the "civil society". The second category of theorists.

Again, if they are independent, what their credentials would be? "Former IBM employee" with the presumption to understand IBM technology? Or "Former ICANN director" with the presumption of understanding ICANN processes? Or "Former ISP engineer" with the presumption that they know technology, etc.
The problem here is "former". There might be many reasons for this, from "fired" to "bored and no longer interested".
How would these people contribute in any meaningful way? In that they now have enough free time to spare on meetings and travel?

> - “private sector” is reserved for for official representatives of
>  businesses and other private sector institutions that are able to
>  directly act as change agents in regard to the topics area under
>  consideration;

Now, you have me completely lost! If you say the "private sector" is the "official representatives of the commercial entities", then apparently I misunderstood you and your definition of "private sector" severely differs from mine, because in mine the "official representative" is more of a "government" kind person. Those "official representative" people almost never have any serious expertise in the field their business operates and almost always in the management. Therefore they too, like the "civil society" have nothing to contribute to the practical aspects of the governance. So, a third category of theorists.

> - “multi/other” is the broad category of all people and organizations
>  who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the first three categories.

I don't know who you put here, but I don't see a single constituency in your lineup, where the practicing experts, who are the only party that can *do* something, are.

> 
> The goal of such a stakeholder categorization is to help recognize (and
> hopefully then rectify) situations where the membership of a committee,
> or a panel, etc, are badly balanced.

Still, the "those who know and those who can" part is missing. As history shows, any committee that lacks this component inevitably produces garbage, that cannot be implemented and is therefore ignored.

> 
>> The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that 
>> particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals.
>> 
>> Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity 
>> that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals 
>> (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the
>> "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved
>> in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges
>> there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it?
>> 
>> For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not 
>> "government".
> 
> So in your understanding, businesses are part of "civil society" as
> long as they're not state owned???

In my country, the constitution says that all parties (individuals, organizations, government) are equal. I therefore make no distinction who the owner is. In my view, only the business is the place where the people who "do" things are. Because this is why businesses exists: to "do" things and earn money.

> 
>> Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a 
>> member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind
>> is automatically excluded from the "civil society".
>> 
>> Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance" 
>> should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in 
>> "Internet Governance".
>> 
>> Pretty complex, eh? :-)
> 
> The model which I'm proposing avoids this kind nonwellfoundedness
> paradox.
> 
> More importantly, the model that I'm proposing avoids defining “civil
> society” so broadly that the experiences and concerns which are
> shared among the members of “civil society” are simply shared because
> we are all humans living on the same planet.
> 
> The broad definitions of “civil society” do not result in “civil
> society” being a category with useful meaning. If multistakeholder
> processes are based on badly defined stakeholder categories, then I'm
> sure that at least in the long run, no governance structure that relies
> on such processes can be viable.

See my proposal above. I would rather dispose of "civil society" as a category. I understand it will annoy a lot of people, but still.. 

One of the problems with "civil society" used in this definition is that not everyone in the world has English as their native language. Translating an expression often is not straightforward and involves the difference in culture and perception between the users of the various languages. A not so fancy definition might actually do the job better.

Unfortunately, I don't believe a "not fancy enough" definition would be accepted by the "government" types.. 

Daniel

> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> -- 
> Recommendations for effective and constructive 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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