The Global Knowledge Partnership (GKP), a self-identified MSP has been very active in promoting Multi-StakeHolder Partnership. A must-read document is the recent GKP Issue paper on Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ( local copy ). Inter alia, the GKP paper proposes a definition and a typology for MSPs. It includes a study of current partnership agreements and their negotiation phases. It recalls the Bali principles and the set of GKP recommendations to the WSIS.

A definition of MSP is proposed : Alliances between parties drawn from government, business and civil society that strategically aggregate the resources and competencies of each to resolve the key challenges of ICT as an enabler of sustainable development, and which are founded on principles of shared risk, cost and mutual benefit. . It is not a legal definition, but a descriptive definition. The typology distinguishes `design-orientated' partnerships, ie multi-stakeholder partnerships convened essentially for the strategic purpose of informing or setting the rules of the enabling environment for ICT (policy, strategy, regulatory regime etc.) and `implementation-orientated' partnerships. about improving access to ICTs through the use of ICT software, eg. training or developmental applications (e-health, e-government, e-education, e-commerce)

Within the perspective of the UNMSP proposal probably the most interesting element of the GKP paper concerns the agreements : First it is recommended that prior consensus should be sought for some form of written document identifying, at a minimum: the shared vision of the partnership; the objectives of each partner for the partnership, and the division of roles and responsibilities. The moral and legal status of the document will be dependent on circumstances.
Then depending on the type of MSP, the agreements may differ widely : Design-orientated multi-stakeholder partnerships, such as consultation processes convened to develop new regulatory frameworks or e-strategies, may have very loose rules of engagement, captured in an informal letter of invitation, or for more structured dialogue, a document such as a Memorandum of Understanding.

More complex, multi-stakeholder, partnerships ­ for example, one designed to improve access to the internet for local schools between a regional internet service provider, computer manufacturer, local education authority and various parent/teacher associations ­ might have an even more detailed Partnering Agreement
The issue of an international public law framework for MSPs is not explored in the GKP paper, but obviously all the experience of the GKP can be used to help write the charter of each MSP, within the UNMSP organization.
Concerning the process towards building a MSP and reaching an agreement, the GKP paper mentions the possibility to ask an third-party broker or facilitor to help or even manage the negotiation process.

Remarkbly enough, the Issue paper on Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships ( local copy ) also include several reviews by Civil Society activists ( for example Adam Peake and Sean O Siochru who are participating actively to the WSIS process ) which include interesting observations ( selected excerpts ) :

Adam Peake : Keep in mind that common reasons given by civil society groups that are active as implementers when explaining their reluctance about multi-stakeholder partnerships is that they are concerned that partnering with the private sector and/or government will lessen their ability to act as impartial critics (the "watchdog" role); that involvement in the process can be used to "buy them off", or be seen to be buying them off; and that such partnerships are always unequal whatever the best intentions. The perception of impartiality/independence is an important consideration, both for trust CS organisations can offer at the local level, and also when representing the work of the partnership within civil society broadly.
... From what I understand about GKP, I am surprised that the role of "convener" is not mentioned until page 30. While "brokering" is discussed, I do not believe it is the same function, nor as important. GKP Secretariat seems to carry out a convening role that needs to be present in all MSPs.
... I agree that the partnership must be self-organising, but I find it hard to conceive that many will do so without a convening agency. The paper should consider giving more thought to the role of the convener, particularly in complex partnerships and those with different stages that require new actors/partners.

Mark Surman: Most private businesses value quick, clear and firm decisions that enable immediate action. Governments, on the other hand, tend to value decisions which are politically defensible and do not create undue risk. Civil society organisations usually value decision making that is consensual or at least that balances the interests and values of all stakeholders. Such a simple thing - decision making style ­ runs deep in each of these cultures and illustrates the broader cultural divides that exist. In my experience, the most successful partnerships are those that are founded around an explicit recognition and understanding of the cultural differences between sectors - and between individual organisations.

Sean O Siochru : I came to the task of reviewing this paper with more than an open mind. I wanted to like it too, to dispel any lurking prejudice I might unfairly apply to multistakeholders partnerships (MSPs) as a result of experience with its first cousin, the public-private partnership (PPP). And indeed, right in the introduction a clear and reasonable distinction is drawn between the two. I might not agree with the point of difference identified: that the central idea of PPP is a "shift in responsibility and risk from one part of society to another, usually from the government to the private sector" (page 7). In my country, Ireland, PPPs in the transport infrastructure sector involve a shift - but not of risk or even responsibility. It involves a major shift of resources from government and people's pockets into virtually risk-free private sector hands, who take their responsibility to shareholders rather more seriously than they do to society.
... Many even in the mainstream believe that the privatisation and liberalisation model is largely discredited as a means to reach the poor majority, or at least has reached its useful limits, and a new paradigm - or several - must be devised and put in place. Such a paradigm is not going to emerge from the roles allotted to the respective partners in MSPs. The idea of communities building and running their own networks, supported by government regulation and funding, is beyond this conception. There is no room in this model for business subsidising civil society to take the economic role, for instance through community-owned cooperative provision; nor indeed for the government investing in and managing the profits of the economic element: presumably the stuff of advocacy and campaigns.
... Other recommendations argue for a role for the GKP in evaluation and in coordinating and resourcing programmes. Civil society might welcome this, but only if the delimited role of MSPs is acknowledged, and the essential role of advocacy and campaigning activities in addressing the fundamentally inequitable regime from global to local levels is recognised. Indeed, with a multiplicity of partner configurations possible, it is not unreasonable to foresee MSPs with strong advocacy and campaigning components, even including farsighted firms and governments.