MULTISTAKEHOLDER INTERNET MODEL: Evolution “Yes” , Revolution “No”.

MULTISTAKEholder MODEL: Evolution “Yes” , Revolution “No”.

The just concluded IGF conference at UNON Nairobi spelled like the best ever and most successful Forum since the inception of the Internet Governance forums , most speakers in the main sessions as well as the feeder workshops lauded the Multistakeholder approach as the best model to run internet.

If you look at most of the inventions that have had a sustained upward graph, the present a history that doesn’t mirror anything close to revolution, and most of the developments that have faced a revolutionized type of growth have always presented an unpredictable future, since no one knows when next it will call for a new revolutionizing upgrade. The best formulae that has always worked is the “Evolution type”- internet and its massive developments cannot be said to have seen a revolutionized type of growth but rather an evolving one because most of the advancement have come as an upgrade of a previous version, the new better version of course boasting of perhaps a new user interface, better software’s, more seamless connections.

Many people have talked about the multistakeholder approach, most recent being a support from ICANN chief Mr Rod Beckstrom as he praised the Brazilian Model: quoting him “It is an example of the Brazilian government’s wisdom in saying we want the private sector, we want the civil society, and Academic leaders, Internet experts and corporations to come together and provide the Internet Strategy for the country,”. to have governments work to implement this model and lift it away from the blue print that is on paper and make it tangible, this means actually implementing it.

Implementation of the this famous model promises to yield successfully, however only if Governments will not be the one calling all the shots , the governments need to be a equal partner and not a bully, the other half of the party that involves the Private commercial sector , Civil groups and Academic and religious organizations must also not be the bottlenecks but reasonable members of the panel, civil groups for instance always prove to be a good watch dog but sometimes degenerate to a nasty bottleneck when they make unreasonable claims.

So to have a seamless approach that cuts across the board, the model must then not be a revolutionizing force but catalyst to "evolvement" , i.e. enter as a party to an already running process, fit in and bring new ideas, not begin a new thing altogether. The Model would only be a success if the governments who wield a veto power ,the civil society advocacy groups that represent the freedom , the business society that owns the equity , the tech mind that drive the engines of new ideas , the spiritual groups that offer solace to the human need for God and the academic institutions that instil education come together and work without bullying one another.

Therefore for me the approach is rather a NO to REVOLUTION and YES to EVOLUTION. !!!