[discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity

Sun Jan 19 09:30:00 UTC 2014

Agree that there is no perfect solution for representation. But we have to
be concerned with "relatively good representation" because there are
solutions that are less representative than others and solutions that are
more representative than others. For instance the random process for
designating the NomCom as Norbert pointed out, is meant to achieve such
relatively better (more acceptable, legitimate) representative outcome,
while the 3 examples of limitation he gave 11+ hours ago in response to
John Curran could indeed provide a basis for challenge to the legitimacy of
a nomination outcome. From all this discussion, it appears obvious to me
that in the future we should avoid by any means necessary having a
self-selected group of people appointing another group of people only from
their organization/network affiliation (I'm assuming here that this has
occurred based on this discussion thread and claims made here... At this
point I personally have forgotten who got nominated and where, not that I
don't care but just too much on my plate right now, sorry.)

The above being said, I also agree that criteria for selection could me
weighted/ranked depending on the issue at hand. For instance, in some cases
expertise may weight heavier than the first degree inclusion of all
interest groups in a given process.

So while waiting for "those other means of creating legitimate processes"
(assuming those other means are themselves accepted as legitimate or both
fair and functional to the extent possible) it still a better thing to do
(than not) to try and be as inclusive as possible, beyond promises that a
particular set of individuals should be relied on to cover equally all the
concerns/ viewpoints _only_ based on their personal qualities.

Mawaki

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks, Jeanette  for raising these thoughts
>
> I will concur with it over all and probably pursue it further from  my
> (the Civil Society) point of view.
> What if we have  the issues/qualities that needed to be taken into
> consideration in MS representation and weight them?
>
>  For instance competence/expertise having more weight and  regional/global
> south/grassroots representation weighted a bit less
>
> That will allow for lesser considerations to still be there, but not be
> the major issues.  In the case of Brazil Committees, maybe the HLC could
> have weighted regional/grassroots/global south representation more  or same
> with expertise/competence while the EMC will weigh expertise more than
> representation
>
> I am convinced that this must have guided the nomcom, but since we did not
> have all of that discussed, agreed and written out in advance, it may not
> have been obvious.
>
> But from the explanations given by SC and Academia, I do believe they toed
> similar lines.
>
> Best
>
> Nnenna
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:58 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Inline
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:44 PM
>> To: michael gurstein; discuss at 1net.org
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model
>> validity
>>
>>
>>
>> *[MG>] snip*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > */[MG>] you personalize this...
>>
>>
>>
>> Only because of the context.
>>
>>
>>
>> *[MG>] ahh… yes, of course, ad hominems…*
>>
>>
>>
>> *[MG>] snip*
>>
>>
>>
>> Still, I don't think that representation is the adequate model to select
>> people or groups. There is no limit to underrepresented, marginalized views
>> that deserve to be heard.
>>
>>
>>
>> *[MG>] could I point you as well to my upcoming blogpost
>> “Multistakeholderism for the powerful and well connected: Tyranny for
>> everyone else”.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *M*
>>
>>
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>> These issues are not about individuals
>>
>> > or personalities but rather about deeper dare I say, “political”
>>
>> > differences and clashes of interests that need to be reconciled in
>>
>> > order to move forward.. Attempts to by-pass or cover these over or
>>
>> > eliminate them through various postures of avoidance simply allow them
>>
>> > to fester and grow even more powerful and destructive.../*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > */[MG>] again you reduce this to "personalities" -- is there a
>>
>> > specific reason for doing so? Perhaps because it is easier to
>>
>> > delegitimize/demonize an individual than to respond to a clearly
>>
>> > articulated political/interest position. /*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > *//*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > */And why do you not include the obvious characteristics of
>>
>> > fairness/natural justice; evident lack of systematic bias; obvious
>>
>> > attempts at broad based inclusion (and not simply formalized identity
>>
>> > based inclusion); and so on.  These would seem to be obvious and
>>
>> > self-evident pre-conditions for a legitimate process whatever methods
>>
>> > of "representation" (or not) are ultimately agreed upon./*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > In short, I think we should drop representativeness as a criteria of
>>
>> > legitimacy and focus on other means of creating legitimate processes.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > */[MG>] yes, as per the above./*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > *//*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > */M/*
>>
>> >
>>
>> > jeanette
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Am 18.01.14 22:01, schrieb Norbert Bollow:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >  > John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org <mailto: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 <mailto:discuss at 1net.org <discuss at 1net.org>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >  > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> >
>>
>> >  >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> >
>>
>> > discuss mailing list
>>
>> >
>>
>> > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org <discuss at 1net.org>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/37b8ac73/attachment-0001.html>