[discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity

[Mike Roberts]

This is an excellent post and a thread well worth pursuing. 

The original Postel model of Support Organizations for developing DNS policy was based on the notion that there were distinct competencies that needed to be represented and heard by the Board.  This arrangement departed from the usual corporate model of committees to deal with policy by populating the SO's primarily with individuals from existing interest groups, a number of which had their origins in the combative discussions in 94-96 over expansion of the TLD space.

There have been policy successes associated with the SO model, now transmuted into the Multistakeholder model, and many failures. Jeanette describes some of the causes below.

ICANN outreach over the years has emphasized a big tent, inclusive approach, but, as many have pointed out, it is one thing to declare a big tent, and another to realize its benefits.

The minimum threshold for the [effective] stakeholder participation which ICANN has sought seems to include: expert knowledge of and interest in DNS issues; generous amounts of time to analyze matters working their way through ICANN policy development; and fairly generous funding to support face to face participation in the global ICANN meetings where most issues are decided.  The number of individuals who meet this threshold is, not surprisingly, small.  Perhaps not small by comparison to established technology policy processes, but certainly small by comparison to the billion plus Internet users.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a period of triumphalism about the virtues of democracy and free markets.  Even the "End of History."  Sadly, the ensuing years have demonstrated the many failures of both latter day democracies and latter day free market capitalism.

Which brings us to the issue of what standard of representative democracy (for which multistakeholderism is a proxy) should be applied to IG and the I* organizations generally?

Jeanette posits, "The open question to me is about functional equivalents to representation…"   That seems to me to be a good place to start.  

- Mike



On Jan 18, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> The concept of representation is usually linked to national democracies and thus to a quantifiable number of voters. Even in this context, representation is a contested issue since it is by no means clear how to fairly represent the voters' opinions which might depend on context, change of time etc. To date, there are so many different voting systems and not one of them can claim to have found the ultimate solution to this vexed problem. Each voting system privileges and disadvantages certain groups.
> What is more, fair representation is just one issue. Another issue is to create more or less stable majorities, select competent people etc.
> 
> If the concept of representation has many issues on the national level, how can we expect to create representative structures on the transnational level? Under the circumstances of a global constituency representativeness will remain a fiction!
> 
> The open question to me is about functional equivalents to representation. Representation is supposed to lend legitimacy to political processes. What other mechanisms can create sufficient trust in the process so that people who are not chosen for one of the committees still accept their existence, processes and outcomes?
> 
> Transparency is an obvious source of legitimacy, so might be the reputation of candidates (i.e. those known for being open-minded, constructive, competent and able to take other opinions than their own on board. I am sure we can come up with ways to integrate views and perspectives into the process that ensure are broader range than those held by committee members.
> 
> In short, I think we should drop representativeness as a criteria of legitimacy and focus on other means of creating legitimate processes.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> 
> Am 18.01.14 22:01, schrieb Norbert Bollow:
>> John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for
>>> everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have
>>> those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to ponder
>>> and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged.
>>> 
>>> I fail to understand how an _representative_ multistakeholder
>>> approach fairly provides for the "represented" to have their
>>> positions considered in a manner that allows for all participating to
>>> revise their views based on the discussion that occurs, and if this
>>> does not occur than one may argue that there isn't actual
>>> deliberative consideration going but simply a dance of posturing and
>>> negotiation.
>> 
>> In my view, representative multistakeholder approaches are not about
>> creating a broad discourse, but about populating, in a reasonably fair
>> and balanced manner, committees and the like which for practical
>> reasons have only a quite limited number of seats.
>> 
>> I posit that a reasonable way to implement a process for selecting
>> representatives is for each stakeholder category to organize a
>> randomly selected NomCom process, with each NomCom being tasked to
>> seek to choose a set of representatives who jointly represent the
>> breadth of perspectives of that stakeholder category as well as
>> is possible under the circumstances.
>> 
>> Individuals who are close to one of the unavoidably fuzzy boundaries
>> between stakeholder categories would get to choose which one of
>> the stakeholder category that are on offer in that particular context
>> fits them best.
>> 
>> I don't claim that this kind of approach would yield perfect
>> representation, but at least the imperfections would be random rather
>> than systematic, and any bias in the pool of people who tend to
>> volunteer for serving on NomComs can be addressed by the very
>> democratic process that anyone who is concerned about such bias is free
>> to seek to convince other qualified people (who don't have that bias)
>> to volunteer for future NomCom pools.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss