3.1A Multistakeholder Model
Class Outline
Stakeholders
Process (inherited NWG/IETF's practice, and evolved)
History (NWG/IETF,....)
Applicability (Refer Hemmati's book)
Limitation (decision making,...)
Remark: Multistakeholder role play class may be held additionally by doing walk-through, possibly with case study.
Class Description (by Jeremy Malcolm)
The multistakeholder model is regularly extolled as a unique feature of Internet governance that enables the perspectives of diverse stakeholders to be brought into policy processes, to produce more inclusive and better informed outcomes. But what theory underlies this multistakeholder model, and how are the stakeholders who participate in multistakeholder processes qualified to do so?Unfortunately, the lack of understanding of these basic questions can conceal deep differences between different multistakeholder processes, that can result in considerable divergence in their diversity, their accessibility, their vulnerability to capture, and the quality of their outputs.This session will seek to unpack the term "multistakeholder" in order to provide a solid conceptual footing of the concept. This knowledge in turn can assist those seeking to apply this innovation in governance without falling prey to its traps, as well as those criticizing or seeking to improve its application in existing institutional contexts.Topics to be discussed in this class include:
- History and development of the multistakeholder model
- How does the model relate to government and democracy?
- Who are the stakeholders in multistakeholder Internet governance?
- What are the appropriate boundaries for the application of the multistakeholder model?
Class Description (IT for Change/Parmindar Jeet Singh )
Multistakeholderism is a crucial contribution to the space of global governance. As it gains currency in the IG arena and beyond, it has come to represent a contested concept, meaning different things to different people. While the approach of multistakeholderism can be seen as an opening up of spaces for different actors to participate in processes of decision making, scholars note that it may not guarantee representation of multiple interests. Equal footing multistakeholderism has been seen as a technical approach to political processes that may not take into account that stakeholders have differing interests - For example, corporations and citizen-consumers have obvious differences in objectives - Internet regulation, taxation and the possible (re)allocation of overall benefits.
What is the evidence saying on how multistakeholder spaces promote dialogue, deliberation and inclusion within a democratic framework? How can policy processes (global and national) recognise and work towards the principle of participation emphasised in the WSIS documents? Can multistakeholderism support substantive, and not just formal, participation? How can we think of participatory governance approaches in IG for the public good or public interest? These are some questions that the lecture will address.
What is the evidence saying on how multistakeholder spaces promote dialogue, deliberation and inclusion within a democratic framework? How can policy processes (global and national) recognise and work towards the principle of participation emphasised in the WSIS documents? Can multistakeholderism support substantive, and not just formal, participation? How can we think of participatory governance approaches in IG for the public good or public interest? These are some questions that the lecture will address.
3.2B Stakeholders
Class Outline: Various stakeholders of Internet governance will be explained in this part;
3.1.1 Public Sector: Domestic public sector, and International organization
Video: 2016 APSIG by Jeremy Malcolm
Lecture Pool:
References
Kilnam Chon, Multistakeholderism - History, 2015.
William J. Drake 2011: Multistakeholderism: Internal Limitations and External Limits, http://dl.collaboratory.de/mind/mind_02_neu.pdf.
GCIG, One Internet, 2016.
Minu Hemmati, Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: beyond deadlock and conflict, 2002.
Jeanette Hoffman, Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance, Journal of Cyber Policy,m 2016.
IGF, Best Practice Forum on Strengthening Multistakeholder Participation Mechanism, IGF, 2015.
Internet Society, Internet Actors and Stakeholder Groups, in Shaping the Internet,Inforum Course, 2015.
Internet Society, Internet Actors and Stakeholder Groups, in Shaping the Internet,Inforum Course, 2015.
Internet Society, Why the multistakeholder approach works?, 2016. [including ppt]
Internet Society, How can we expand the use of the multistakeholder model?, 2017.7.19.
Internet Society (Sally Wentworth), Can We Expand the Multistakeholder Model for Internet Governance? A Feasibility Report, 2017.10.
Larry Stickling, Feasibility of expanding use of multistakeholder approaches to Internet governance, 2017.10.
Jeremy Malcolm, Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum, 2008.
Jeremy Malcolm, Internet Governance training session, Center for Internet and Society, presentation material, 2014.
Jeremy Malcolm, Biography, 2016
Jeremy Malcolm, Presentation Material, Bangkok APSIG, 2016.
Puneeth Nagaraj and Aaarti Bhavana, Multistakholderism in Action, 2016.
John Savage and Bruce McConnell, Exploring multistakeholder internet governance, East West Institute, 2015.
Anri van der Spuy, What if we all goverened the internet?, UNESCO, 2017.
John Savage and Bruce McConnell, Exploring multistakeholder internet governance, East West Institute, 2015.
Anri van der Spuy, What if we all goverened the internet?, UNESCO, 2017.
Asia Internet History – Third Decade (2000s), 2016.
Laura DeNardis and Mark Raymond, Multistakeholderism: Anatomy of an Inchoate Global Institutions, 2014.
Internet Society, Internet actors and stakeholder groups, Shaping the Internet, Inforum Course, 2015.
NETmundial Internet Goverenance Principles, 2014.
WSIS, Tunis Agenda, 2005
