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

Baudouin SCHOMBE b.schombe at gmail.com
Tue Oct 28 16:28:17 EET 2014

Sala Hello, hello to all,

This explanation of the "multi" concept is peeled as the debates live. But I
wonder whether we are in search of a definition of "multi-stakeholder"?
In my humble opinion, this approach started from the PrepCom in 2003
<http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/735.htm> it makes sense to evaluate
this approach since that time until now to identify the ins and outs to

Thank you so much for this reminder that lies in the debate.


*ISOC Member*
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr

2014-10-25 12:24 GMT+02:00 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:

> 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/20141028/4c69e7ec/attachment.html>

More information about the IRP mailing list