[IRPCoalition] [governance] Multistakeholderism/ Was Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Shreedeep Rayamajhi weaker41 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 18:38:04 EET 2014

Yes, I think the definition of Multistakeholderism is well defined and it
further needs to be proactive to its practice. As multistakeholderism has
been opted to further integrate the regional and other lower structure
voices it needs to be dynamic and adaptive.

If multistakeholderism is there  and if it has no meaning of importance for
the isolated groups then it cannot achieve its goals. In most of the
situation  in a democratic process, when it comes to opining and decision
then majority rules where the voices of multistakeholderism structures
 declines, where it needs to be secured. I think multistakeholderism is a
bottom's up process of finding commonality not just in the process of
finding issues, management and decision but in leadership as well where the
voices needed to be addressed and need to give importance to the unheard
voices and groups.

Thanks to the  group for find the meaningful definition  and i strongly
believe  its should remain adaptive for its action and practice.

Cheers to Life
Shreedeep Rayamajhi


*DISCLAIMER:* This message is intended only for the recipient. If you are
not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited.

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Arsene TUNGALI <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr>

> Thanks Salanieta for the summary.
> This is a very complex terminology and i am not sure there is a way to
> have an accurate definition which every stakeholder will agree on.
> Still, your summary gives a starting point for more discussion.
> Regards,
> A
> ------
> Arsene Tungali,
> Executive Director, Rudi International
> www.rudiinternational.org
> Democratic Republic of Congo
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone (excuse typos)
> At 25 oct. 2014 05:24:51, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<'
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com'> wrote:
> Dear All,
> Sometime ago (many months ago) on the IGC there was some discussion on the
> list about MSism. Here is a draft synthesis of what people were saying at
> the time that really should go on the IGC etherpad for comment and further
> discussion. I tried synthesising it but it needs a group of volunteers to
> comb through IGC archives and help piece together the different views etc.
> It is pointless to go on a debate that leads to nowehere except of course
> where people can accept that there are diverse views and position but
> resolve to agree to disagree etc.
> Synthesis of Discussions on the IGC on Multistakeholderism
> These are interesting times in the context of enhanced cooperation between
> various stakeholders within the Information Society. The following is a
> synthesis of perspectives gleaned from the dialogue on the Civil Society
> Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) list.
> What does "Multistakeholder" mean?
> Multistakeholder is a governance structure that brings diverse
> stakeholders together to cooperate and participate in the dialogue,
> decision making, and implementation of solutions to common problems or
> goals[1].
> What is Multistakeholderism?
> Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement; it is not a
> means of legitimization[2]. Legitimization comes from people, from work
> with and among people[3]. Multistakeholder processes could and should
> enhance democracy by increasing opportunities for effective participation
> by those most directly impacted by decisions and particularly those at the
> grassroots who so often are voiceless in these processes[4]. It should
> enhance democracy by ensuring that decisions made are reflective of and
> responsive to local concerns and to the broadest range of those who must
> bear the consequences[5]. It should enhance democracy by making democratic
> processes more flexible and responsive, able to adjust to changing contexts
> circumstances, technologies, and impact populations[6].
> In the context of Internet Governance, there exists a diverse set of
> stakeholders that each have their respective framework which describes how
> subscribers are to engage. There is no doubt a wide range of foras,
> organisations, committees or groups where some form of "Multistakeholder"
> governance is practiced whether various modes of vehicles including but not
> limited to that of a Trust, Corporation, Organisation, Intergovernmental
> Forum, an International Organisation or an ad hoc community.
> Multistakeholderism on an Organizational Level
> This can be seen within an organizational level, for example,
> organisations such as Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN)[7] has its Bylaws[8] which sets out its mission and core values and
> describes the various constituencies within ICANN.
> Each constituency within ICANN has specific framework governing how each
> stakeholder conducts its affairs.
> There are many other organisations within the Information Society that
> have some form of Multistakeholder engagement and these organisations have
> guidelines that help to act as a framework for relations.
> Multistakeholderism in Working Groups and Committees
> This can also be seen with regard to Working Groups, take for example the
> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.
> The United Nations General Assembly, at its 67th session, adopted Resolution
> 67/195 on Information and communication technologies for development[9]. This
> Resolution invited the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Science
> and Technology for Development (UN CSTD)[10], to establish a working group
> on enhanced cooperation to examine the mandate of the World Summit on the
> Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the
> Tunis Agenda.
> The Tunis Agenda[11] pivots on focusing on financial mechanisms for
> bridging the digital divide, on Internet governance and related issues, as
> well as on implementation and follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis decisions.
> The GA RES 67/195 requested the Chair of the UN CSTD to "ensure that the
> working group on enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between
> Governments from the five regional groups of the Commission and invites
> other stakeholders, namely the private sector, civil society, technical and
> academic communities, and intergovernmental and international
> organisations".
> Challenges of Multistakeholderism: Issues within Civil Society
> In 2004, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) participated in a
> Civil Society Meeting in Berlin and identified principles and examined
> issues affecting Civil Society[12]. The meeting comprised of a
> representative from the ICANN At Large Advisory Committee[13], Humanistiche
> Union[14], Internet Governance Caucus Coordinator[15], the UN Non-
> Governmental Liaison Service[16], and African Civil Society for the
> Information Society[17] and Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship
> with the United Nations[18].
> Principles that were identified in the 2004 meeting included:
> · Legitimacy;
> · Representation;
> · Transparency; and
> · Accountability.
> Issues of legitimacy, representation, transparency and accountability
> continue to surface over the years on a global, regional and national scale
> (Anja Kovacs & Nnenna Nwakanma).
> Navigating Through the Maze
> Just as context differs, whether it is for an organisation or a committee,
> it is important to acknowledge that context differs whether these are
> organisations or intergovernmental organisations that are subject to
> diverse rules and procedures. The United Nations for instance is bound by
> the Resolutions of its members as per the General Assembly and can only act
> when mandated.
> ICANN on the other hand is bound by its Bylaws and its Affirmation of
> Commitment.
> Similarly, the Working Groups are bound by their respective mandates
> whether these are in the form of formal documentation such as organizing
> instruments or where these are loosely organized in an ad hoc fashion.
> Whatever, the context, one thing is certain, bringing a diverse group of
> people poses significant challenges to building consensus and bridging
> relationships particularly when there are diverse if not polarized
> perspectives and strong views from various stakeholders.
> Purpose Precedes Method
> To this end, a practical means of dealing with diversity is to clearly
> establish the purpose from the outset (David Allen). After this is
> established, it is useful to develop the methods where the purpose(s) can
> be fulfilled (David Allen and Parminder).
> Given that the nature of Multistakeholder engagement implies the inclusion
> of civil society, private sector and the public sector, it follows that
> each categorization has unique concerns and characteristics that relate to
> its identity.
> Often the disenfranchisement, turf wars or propaganda is motivated by
> fears and it is important that these fears are addressed. Part of
> establishing purpose means to create a safe environment where genuine
> collaboration can commence.
> Multistakeholderism is not a replacement (David Allen) and does not take
> away from each component or part. Rather it is the sum of all parts.
> Multistakeholderism is not a policy making forum as this is reserved for
> democratic contexts (David Allen).
> Multistakeholderism is a means of moving towards greater engagement and
> enhanced cooperation among diverse stakeholders (Michael Gurstein).
> ------------------------------
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model
> [2] Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for Change at
> the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review held by UNESCO from 25th to
> 27th February, 2013
> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model
> [4] ibid
> [5] ibid
> [6] ibid
> [7] A Californian Non Profit Public-Benefit Corporation
> [8] http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws
> [9] http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ares67d195_en.pdf
> [10] Ambassador Miguel Palomino de la Gala is the current Chair of the UN
> [11] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html
> [12] Meeting Record on Working Methods of Civil Society (20th November
> 2004), Berlin, Germany
> [13] Vittorio Bertola
> [14] Dr Christoph Bruch
> [15] Jeanette Hoffman
> [16] Ramin Kaweh
> [17] Nnenna Nwakanma
> [18] Rik Panganiban
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:30 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> It is interesting to see that those who are amongst the most vocal and
>> public advocates for MSism are also those who refuse to actually indicate
>> what they mean by MSism.
>>  M
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20141027/3406f7db/attachment.html>

More information about the IRP mailing list