[discuss] NETmundial documents online for comment

Sat Apr 19 00:43:27 UTC 2014

at what point does/did "Multi-stakeholder" equate to a set of the whole?   I might posit that if there are at least two stakeholders represented,
it is, by definition,  "multistakeholder" ....

/bill

On 18April2014Friday, at 15:38, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

> That's an awful lot of negative judgments/assumptions about stakeholder participants and the multistakeholder decision-making process.  You're entitled to your opinions, but these are not facts.  And my opinion (formed in part through several years of participation in multistakeholder processes) are quite different ( more or less the opposite of) your opinions.  With a different set of judgments/assumptions, one could conclude that MS processes align well with democratic values.
> 
> That's not to say that any particular practicing MS process is an Olympian ideal, but then again, neither are any practicing democracies that I am aware of.  And of course, democracies are full of parties and factions and special interest groups and exclusionary maneuvering (Gerrymandering, voter qualification, etc.) and resource issues.  And the policy and implementation issues involved in "democratic" IG would be mind-boggling, and would create new problems without necessarily solving old ones (let's all vote on IPv6!)
> 
> It might be an interesting theoretical debate or dissertation, but pragmatically speaking the whole MS vs. democracy debate is a big red herring.
> 
> Greg Shatan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 4:21 PM
> To: 'Carlos A. Afonso'; 'McTim'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Cc: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; '1Net List'
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] RE: [ciresearchers] NETmundial documents online for comment
> 
> Thanks c.a.
> 
> And remembering that in an earlier distant life I was a sociologist. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you have written below... I really don't see how having self-selected "stakeholders" sitting around a table making deals/decisions that affect themselves (and their interests) and everyone else (most of whom would have no real opportunity to function as "stakeholders" whether through exclusionary practices of existing stakeholders or because of a lack of resources etc.) can in any sense be "made" democratic.
> 
> But I could be wrong.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca]
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 4:30 PM
> To: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: 1Net List; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] RE: [ciresearchers] NETmundial documents online for comment
> 
> Since I do not bother being bashed, I dare to advance (borrowing from Geometry, please recall that in the distant past I did naval
> engineering) that "multistakeholder" is orthogonal to "democracy", "participation" and so on. We make multistakeholder democratic and participative by our own (each stakeholder's) actions.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 04/18/2014 12:05 PM, McTim wrote:
>>> 
>>> Clearly there is an intent to replace democratic governance with
>>> multistakeholder governance. But this issue is not addressed in a
>>> forthright manner anywhere in the document.
>> 
>> 
>> I believer the opposite to be true.
>> 
>> You and a few other folk would like to replace the 40 year old
>> existing governance model of the Internet with a version of
>> Westphalianism.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                * * *
> 
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
>                                                                * * *
> 
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss