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

[parminder]

On Thursday 19 September 2013 10:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2013, at 09:44, McTim wrote:
>
>> ..... I can accept either scenario and develop my
>>> thinking and positions over it. However, people can not be arguing one
>>> position when it suits them and the opposite when it so suits. ( I aint
>>> speaking about you.) The biggest problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) is
>>> that it refuses to enter into such clear basic categories
>> We are humans, things get messy.  We can't be sorted into piles neatly.
>
> I  also look for a notion of subsidiarity where each stakeholder group determines its own criteria for participation and representation.


Who decides what and how many of these stakeholder groups would exist 
and be considered relevant in the first place, and what proportion of 
relevance will be allocated to each .... Why women groups involved with 
Internet issues not be a separate stakeholder group, as should be those 
with disability,  cultural minorities, LGBT groups, trade unions, and so 
on.... Why each of them doesnt get an equal pie in stakeholder 
representation bodies, as some *big businesses*, and some Internet 
techies get at present. The groups that I mention here are much bigger 
than these two groups - big business and Internet techies, and owing to 
their marginalisation, much more in need of additional representational 
avenues.

However, even to take your point, if indeed so,  on this principle of 
subsidiarity, why is then civil society not allowed to determine its own 
boundaries, which are clearly relevant to processes of participation and 
representation. Why are those who represent other stakeholder groups in 
the IG spaces constantly telling civil society  that we mustn't be 
excluding and mustn't pigeon-hole people. Especially when we mean no 
such thing - we welcome including everyone in our discussions, which are 
publicly archived (unlike the case of any of these other groups). But 
when it does come to matters of collective decision making, 
representation etc, some  of us do raise legitimate issues of conflict 
of interest etc.... As per Norbert's stipulations, such conflict of 
interest was indeed very narrowly defined - that a person should not be 
directly involved as representing commercial or governmental interests, 
in_the_same_area_as in which they seek to get involved with civil 
society’s core processes. What is wrong with it?

I consider such objections to clarifying civil society's internal 
processes as contributing to weakening of civil society in this space - 
which indeed is already very very weak because of this precise reason. 
It is worst from of double whammy - first use some special forms of 
multistakeholderism to erode democratic norms and systems, and then deal 
with that one multi-stakeholder space which could still cause some 
trouble - civil society, by conveniently declaring it as a 
'multistakeholder space' in itself. Brilliant!

parminder




>
> avri
>
>


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