[discuss] [governance] [ciresearchers] NETmundial documentsonline for comment

Sat Apr 19 12:38:03 UTC 2014

Do I need to say how utterly preposterous is the following.

First we have the statement "some form of multistakeholderism is appropriate
for any Internet governance issue"... err "some form of
multistakeholderim"... exactly how many "forms" are there and do they have
different, species, families, genuses--or perhaps there are 98 or 106 or 118
as in Mendeleeyev's periodic table, or perhaps there are infinite numbers as
in the number of the names of god or the number of angels dancing on the
heads of pins.. 

And then "any Internet governance issue". is that any possible Internet
governance issue, any practical Internet governance issue, any governance
issue that our friends in the US State Department might want to attribute as
"Internet governance" or.. 

Then we have a totally new term--"uni-multistakeholder system"--one that
I've never seen before and which evidently Mr. Google has never heard of
either... no hits among the several billion websites. No definition just
plunked in their to shore up a very very leaking argument (epicycling
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle>  anyone?).

And then we have "What is most problematic is the view that
multistakeholderism only consists of one model" . problematic to who
exactly? Evidently not to the proponents of MSism for whom a governance
system that has been in evolution for 1000 years or so and currently among
other things is bestirring the energies and hopes of 1.3 or so billion
people in  India ,among a couple of billion other devotees elsewhere in the
world, is something that can be casually discarded in favor of a will o' the
whisp which evidently has as many forms as Sally Rand
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Rand>  had bubbles.

And then we have this one. "Each issue has an appropriate form of the
multistakeholder model, different sets of actors, roles and
responsibilities". each issue has its own private Multistakeholder model.
hmmm. so how is that determined, who makes the choice, who does the vetting,
who gets to play at being a stakeholder . does all of this appear as by
magic. Houdini as the guiding force of MSism conjuring up a new and of
course "appropriate" form at will and on call.

And going on we have this "The difficulty is coming to consensus on the
proper mix." Yep, I'm sure given the infinite number of models and the
equally infinite number of possible issues and the virtually infinite number
of potential participants reaching that hallowed ground, a. (pause for drum
rolls) Multistakeholder consensus will very likely be difficult;  unless of
course, as would inevitably be the case, a small group of privileged
insiders would get together and decide what the "consensus" will be and then
having announced this to the waiting and expectant multitudes go on to reap
the benefits of their ever so pomo post-democratic form of decision making.

And then just in case someone has been able to follow the discussion we have
the following caveat "Just wanted to make sure we knew that we did not have
universal agreement on your statement.". well dah, yah. I'm sure that at
least one of the angels dancing on the head of one of the infinite pins is
almost certain to disagree and there tragically goes our "universal
agreement", sigh.

But we go on. "I think that multistakeholderism, in its variety of
expressions and modalities of participatory democracy, is the only way
forward possible".. and by this time I'm completely lost we have the
infinite forms of MSism and now we have the "variety" of expressions and
modalities of "participatory democracy". this is starting to sound like the
Kabbalah evoking the infinite names of G at d and his infinite qualities each
of which in turn has an infinite number of forms. are we getting close . is
this finally a way of understanding exactly what MSism might be.

And finally we have this one "Anything else leaves some relevant actors
outside the solution and is fundamentally anti-democratic". yes, I agree,
anyone who disagrees with any of the above in all its clarity and precision
is cast out into the darkest and deepest circles of hades never again to
have access to the shining light of this new, improved and wondrous form of
"post-democracy".

Well I guess it's back to Golem worship for me.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 12:48 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] [ciresearchers] NETmundial
documentsonline for comment

> *From:*Ian Peter [ <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]

> I agree with your point Michael. I am travelling now, but I think you 

> should make the point in NetMundial document somehow that extending 

> multistakeholderism to all aspects on governance "on the internet" 

> could be problematic and does not have universal agreement.

> 

> 

Of course no point of view has universal agreement, no matter how small or
large the group.

I beleive that some form of multistakeholderism is appropriate for any
Internet governance issue.  I argue that a uni-stakeholder system is _never_
appropriate for the Internet. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Though I would agree that extending any one system to the Internet is going
to be problematic.  What is most problematic is the view that
multistakeholderism only consists of one model, or that any form of the
model is the solution to all issues.  Each issue has an appropriate form of
the multistakeholder model, different sets of actors, roles and
responsibilities.  The difficulty is coming to consensus on the proper mix.

Just wanted to make sure we knew that we did not have universal agreement on
your statement.  I may be alone, but I think that multistakeholderism, in
its variety of expressions and modalities of participatory democracy, is the
only way forward possible.  Anything else leaves some relevant actors
outside the solution and is fundamentally anti-democratic.

avri

_______________________________________________

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140419/795fe306/attachment.html>