[discuss] [governance] RE: [ciresearchers] NETmundial documents online for comment

Sat Apr 19 07:36:49 UTC 2014

Greg,

Please see my just posted reply to Mike Roberts as the intro to my comments below...

In the context of layers #3 and 4 (and an economic layer) of the "onion skin model" where traditionally democratic decision-making processes and norms have prevailed I would ask you to back up your assertions with as you say "facts" as to the

1.       the inclusiveness of MS processes as they might apply in this area—i.e. so that they truly reflect the “interests/stakes” of all stakeholders which by now I would expect we would all agree would include virtually all people in the world, and not simply those who have the resources to be able to show up at expensive venues and engage in somewhat technical discussions in English 

2.       the probity of the internal stakeholder processes—operative and transparent rules of selection, determination of status, internal stakeholder decision making etc.

3.       the probity of the MS decision making processes i.e. the rules governing conflict of interest, self-dealing, capture, and so 

In the absence of some suitable response to the above your assertions as to the usefulness of MSism seems simply to be an example of special pleading. The point about democracy is that it represents at its most basic the determination of matters of public interest by the many rather than the few.  

If you are arguing that decisions should be made by the (resourced, powerful and networked) few as “stakeholders”, then please have the courage to say so and then we can stop this back and forth and agree to disagree.

Your experience as a well-paid English speaking professional able to travel at will is hardly reflective of even a majority of your fellow citizens let alone the rest of the world.

Equally your experience as a citizen of a country with a notoriously and increasingly dysfunctional political system is hardly the basis for making assessments of appropriate decision making systems as they might have global impact (it is interesting that your examples of exclusionary maneuvering (“Gerrymandering” and “voter disqualification”) are examples drawn directly from the current US experience with no justification on your part as to how these might be of significance in a global context…).

M 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan at ReedSmith.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:38 PM
To: 'michael gurstein'; '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

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:  <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org> discuss-bounces at 1net.org [ <mailto: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';  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

Cc:  <mailto:ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net> 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> mailto:ca at cafonso.ca]

Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 4:30 PM

To: McTim;  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein

Cc: 1Net List;  <mailto:ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net> 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

>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

>  <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

> 

_______________________________________________

discuss mailing list

 <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

 <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140419/998e15b9/attachment-0001.html>