[discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity
Janna Anderson
andersj at elon.edu
Sun Jan 19 14:54:27 UTC 2014
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
Representativeness is no category that can be sufficiently
operationalized in a transnational or global context.
Jeanette,
Thank you so much for reiterating this absolutely necessary point.
Best,
Janna Anderson
Elon University
On 1/19/14 9:31 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
>Am 19.01.14 10:30, schrieb Mawaki Chango:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Hi Mawaki,
>
>relatively good representation relative to what? All definitions of
>internet governance I am aware of are broad and fuzzy, perhaps rightly
>so. Now, how can we possibly map the global interests in these matters
>as a basis for assessing the quality of representation? I think this is
>impossible to do.
>
>My guess is we can only measure representation relative to those people
>who speak up on any of the mailing lists revolving around IG themes.
>
>As far as I remember the IGC members have always been painfully aware
>that the IGC at least is by no means representative of anyone and
>anything which is why we never claimed the right to select the list of
>civil society candidates for the MAG. We always knew that there are most
>likely other groups out there who might also have good reasons to
>nominate people for the MAG and are not even aware of our existence!
>Same thing can be said about bestbits, which has roughly the same
>subscribers to begin with as Nenna found out.
>
>So I say this one more time before I shut up on this issue:
>representativeness is no category that can be sufficiently
>operationalized in a transnational or global context.
>
>jeanette
>
>
>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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Inline____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu
>> <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:44 PM
>> To: michael gurstein; discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative
>> Multistakeholder model validity
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> */[MG>] snip/*____
>>
>> >__ __
>>
>> > */[MG>] you personalize this...____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Only because of the context.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> */[MG>] ahhŠ yes, of course, ad hominemsŠ/*____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> */[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
>> ³Multistakeholderism for the powerful and well connected:
>> Tyranny for everyone else².____/*
>>
>> */__ __/*
>>
>> */M/*____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> jeanette____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> These issues are not about individuals____
>>
>> > or personalities but rather about deeper dare I say,
>> ³political²____
>>
>> > 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
>> <mailto:jcurran at istaff.org%20%3cmailto: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>
>> <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>____
>>
>> >__ __
>>
>> > > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss____
>>
>> >__ __
>>
>> > >____
>>
>> >__ __
>>
>> > ___________________________________________________
>>
>> >__ __
>>
>> > discuss mailing list____
>>
>> >__ __
>>
>> > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>> <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>____
>>
>> >__ __
>>
>> > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss____
>>
>> >__ __
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto: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
More information about the discuss
mailing list