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

Sat Apr 19 14:57:45 UTC 2014

Michael,

Avri's statement is not "against democracy."

"Multistakeholderism" is not being used as an "ism", suggesting an ideology
or a belief. It is shorthand for "participation of all stakeholders" and,
depending on the case at hand, advances, complements or blazes a trail for
larger-scale democratic processes (which as has been discussed, do not have
a unique form.)

The fallacy in your argument, I think, is called "false dilemma."

Alejandro Pisanty

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:38 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 <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
>
> 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
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140419/12053aa3/attachment-0001.html>