[governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level?

[david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu]

With appreciation, Ian, for your bringing to the surface this important discussion.

I believe those of us with a history in these matters, going back some years now, know pretty clearly one of the distinctions.

"In respective roles" acknowledges that, for democracy to work, representatives elected by the people make the final policy choice. Where the deliberative process, leading up to that policy choice, must also necessarily bring energetic input from the people, in this case represented now by the notion of civil society. Only then, with active citizen participation, is there any prospect for real democracy.

"On an equal footing" disrupts this careful process of deliberation, then choice by elected representatives. Indeed, leaves no actual process.

And indeed, division directly on this matter led to the creation of key groups in the civil society sphere.

Again, with appreciation.

David

> On Oct 30, 2019, at 5:30 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks everyone who responded so far - I was interested to learn that we do have some reasonable examples of government co-operating with civil society and private sector in policy development: at a national level- and to learn that cgi.br <http://cgi.br/> is still alive.
> 
> We can debate forever what terms like "multistakeholderism", "enhanced co-operation", "respective roles" and "equal footing" mean, but I remain convinced that the only path to effective cooperation on the complex policy issues we face with the evolving internet will  be all parties working co-operatively on policy evolution - both within national borders, and also across these borders on a global basis.
> 
> I should mention that my questions were prompted by attending Australia's Netthing event (https://netthing.org.au/ <https://netthing.org.au/>). My impression after that was that the government here wanted to be seen to be co-operating with other stakeholders, but either was doing this in a tokenistic fashion or wasn't quite sure how to go about it. So some good examples from elsewhere might be very useful!
> 
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Tamir" <tisrael at cippic.ca <mailto:tisrael at cippic.ca>>
> To: governance at lists.riseup.net <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>
> Sent: 31/10/2019 3:56:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level?
> 
>> I can speak a bit to the Canadian IoT initiative.
>> 
>> This process was largely guided/hosted by ISOC, CIRA (our ccTLD) and ISED, which is our industry/innovation department. The process went really well, and the government participants definitely engaged on equal footing.
>> 
>> There were also government officials, civil society reps and business reps in the actual working groups that drove most of the work. There too, it was definitely an equal footing exchange.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Tamir
>> 
>> On 2019-10-30 12:51 p.m., Joly MacFie wrote:
>>> The Canada IoT Security process, fostered by ISOC's NA Bureau, appeared to be a success https://iotsecurity2018.ca/ <https://iotsecurity2018.ca/> 
>>> 
>>> Here is video of Larry Strickling's introductory comments https://livestream.com/internetsociety/12days08/ <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/12days08/>
>>> 
>>> Larry, incidentally, has left ISOC to work as Policy Director for US Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg
>>> 
>>>  joly
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:42 PM Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps of the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing".
>>> 
>>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed that. What are our good examples now, or don't they exist?
>>> 
>>> Ian
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists <https://riseup.net/lists>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast <skype:punkcast>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Tamir Israel
>> Staff Lawyer
>> 
>> Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
>> University of Ottawa | Faculty of Law | CML Section
>> 57 Louis Pasteur Street
>> Ottawa | ON | K1N 6N5
>> ☎: +1 613-562-5800 x 2914
>> Fax: +1 613-562-5417
>> PGP Key: 0x7F01E2C7 <https://cippic.ca/documents/keys/tisrael@cippic.ca-pub.txt>
>> PGP Fingerprint: 871C 31EC B6CC 3029 A1A1 14C4 D119 76EC 7F01 E2C7
>> 
>> ♺ Do you really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire d’imprimer ce courriel?
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists <https://riseup.net/lists>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191031/3887e336/attachment.htm>