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

Sun Apr 20 04:16:52 UTC 2014

Michael,

there is a way and there is a fit. There is some pretty good reading about
the fit between the participation of all stakeholders and democracy, some
of it in these lists. (BTW if participation is not included in your book on
democracy, it must indeed be a bizarre book.)

Your writing fails to distinguish between people who do and who don't:
agree or disagree with the NetMundial planned outcome paper and the history
that got us there, follow or not the Santa Fe paper you dislike, follow or
not the Washington Consensus, believe their governments are democratic or
not, and so on, for pages. In your writing everybody except pure and
pristine you are either thieves or brainwashed.

That is consistent with identifying an epistemological barrier on your side
which denies the great growth that developing and marginalized technical,
academic and civil-society participation in Internet, environment, and many
other fields of global- and local-reach governance have achieved, and the
struggles of these organizations within their countries against censorship,
repression, bad laws, and for connectivity, access to knowledge, freedom of
speech and of association, training, and the sheer build-up of Internet
connectivity and content. These communities and individuals are varied in
political preference, profession, geography, ethnicity, age, and education
and consider themselves the richer for it. They have built a lot based on
their participation which was, is and will continue to be denied by any
other system and will resist attempts - including yours - to have their
achievements and hopes taken away.

As long as your writings continue to lump together everybody into
categories of shills and idiots there can hardly be any point in further
explanations directed to you when there is so much more to achieve. It is
fair to say that you have documented bias and disqualification enough.

Alejandro Pisanty

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:21 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> That’s good Alejandro but it would also be good to see that stated front
> and centre for example in the NetMundial documents where stakeholders/MSism
> is mentioned 46 times and democracy is not mentioned even once and as well
> in all the various documents presenting MSism as THE only appropriate model
> for global (Internet) governance.
>
>
>
> It would also I think be useful to have some clarity as to what exactly is
> meant by MSism as principle or as model… the usage and definitions are all
> over the map… and of course, the possible relationship of MSism to
> democratic principles and practices is completely undeveloped in any useful
> way.
>
>
>
> Rather than commissioning and publishing yet another “expert” panel’s paen
> to the wonders of MSism, supporting a discussion on how the participation
> of those most closely impacted by decisions undertaken through and by
> democratic institutions in the area of Internet governance might most
> usefully contribute to those decisions, could be a truly valuable
> contribution from ISOC (or even ICANN).
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 3:58 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* Avri Doria; discuss at 1net.org
> *Subject:* Re: [discuss] [governance] [ciresearchers] NETmundial
> documentsonline for comment
>
>
>
> 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
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     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/20140419/05c0070f/attachment-0001.html>