(No.167) Understanding multistakeholderism and IG capacity building in quasi-democratic or authoritarian countries

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

Question 5

Concise Description of Workshop: 

It is very difficult to translate the term "multistakeholderism" into different languages. It is not only linguistic problem, but also cultural, historical, economical, and, finally, political one.
The roles of government, business and civic society in quasi-democratic or authoritarian countries are not well separated, first of all because of using public money or public resources as the main source of the personal enrichment. Under close examinations politicians reveal themselves as businessmen, businessmen have extremely close relations with politics, and NGOs prosper on money of politicians or businessmen, or on both.
And all of them are extremely interested in NOT delivering to their citizens free access to knowledge, information, communication, and, finally, to understanding of the concept of multistakeholderism.
IGF, ICANN, regional and national IG initiatives can help to overcome this bottle-neck, even if such countries do not participate in these fora on official level. But such efforts demand a lot of support from adequate parties (for example, from the Council of Europe for the Eastern European countries).
To share multistakeholderism values on the global level it is necessary to put them as the major priority for all IG stakeholders, regardless their regional affiliation. Summer Schools on Internet Governance, ICANN Fellowship and ICANN Academy, ISOC Ambassadors, Diplo Foundation have to create critical mass to raise awareness and to promote media and internet literacy. The idea of multiple mirrors of all these initiatives, together with capacity building with all their participants, can really change the world order.
Agenda
00.00  Oksana Prykhodko - Greetings and brief overview of the workshop's agenda and objective.
00.05  All panelists - introduction, stakeholder self-identification, motivation for participation in IG.
00.20  All panelists - Explanation of their own stakeholder’s role in IG. What do government, civil society, business and international organizations have to do in IG?  What are the main problems with fulfilling of their own roles? What are the main difficulties in explaining multistakeholder approach?
00.45  All panelists - What do they expect from other stakeholders?
00.60 All participants - Questions and answers, discussion
00.80 All panelists - Concluding remarks and next steps from all panelists
00.85 Oksana Prykhodko - Concluding summary from workshop organizer
00.90 The end
 

Organiser(s) Name: 

Oksana Prykhodko, director of the iNGO European Media Platform (with head-quarter in Ukraine)

Previous Workshop(s): 

No

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Denmark, University of Aarhus (confirmed)
Olga Cavalli, Argentina's GAC representative at ICANN (confirmed)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr, vice-chair of the ICANN's ALAC,Australia (confirmed)
Naveed Ul-Haq, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) (confirmed -  remotely)
Sebastien Bacholet, France, ICANN director (confirmed)
Paul Rendek, Netherlands, RIPE (confirmed)
Martin Boyle, Nominet, UK (confirmed)
 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Valery Trufanau, Belarus
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Oksana Prykhodko
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }

The main purpose of the workshop was to discuss, if multistakeholder (MSH) model is unique for Internet Governance issues, what makes any structure or process really multistakeholder one, what is the situation with multistakeholder laboratories (such as national IGFs and ccTLD administrators)in developing countries.
In developed countries (such as France, for example) there are a lot of examples MSH structures in non-IG spheres, which are not called as MSH, but in which governments, business and civil society act together, in their respective roles. But in quazi-democratic countries even such MSH laboratories as national IGFs or ccTLD administrators lack key elements of MSH. In authoritarian countries the role of governmental regime is extreme, but in quazi-democratic countries there are examples of governmental vacuum, with lack of transparency and accountability.

Conclusions and further comments: 

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }

Awareness raising, literacy, education are extremely important IG capacity building, but there is also the need for some binding mechanisms, which can provide the minimal standards of MSH. It is not about creation of new international structure or about taking the control on Internet by ITU, for example. It is about more active role of OECD, Council of Europe, European Union and other international organizations in IG issues.
EuroSSIG, DiploFoundation, ICANN Fellowship program have to be used more actively in developing countries to create the strong network of personal contacts, to ensure trust in MSH, to avoid faking the concept.