[discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched)

[michael gurstein]

John,

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-proc
esses/

 

but

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e
nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/

 

and

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my
-adventures-in-stakeholderland/

 

and.

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/if-multistakeholderism-had-prevaile
d-in-the-late-19thearly-20th-century-would-women-have-the-vote-would-we-stil
l-have-slavery/

 

I'm working on another one which I'm tentatively title-ing
"Multistakeholderism for the Powerful and Well Connected: Tyranny for
Everyone Else"

 

M

 

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] 
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:53 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: parminder; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,; 1Net List;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC
Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model
validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site
launched)

 

On Jan 18, 2014, at 7:56 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:





 So in this instance the burden of proof surely falls not on those who are
demonstrating that the "multistakeholder model" doesn't provide an
appropriate approach to governance but rather on those who are attempting to
assert that it does.

 

Actually, we're in agreement on that - i.e. the burden of proof should fall
to those who are 

attempting to assert the validity of the model.   You're asserting that
there could be a valid

representative multistakeholder selection process, but it somehow didn't
happen in this 

case.

 

I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for everyone
(who wishes)

to present their views on a given topic, have those views considered based
on their merits,

and allow all to ponder and revise their understanding based on the
information exchanged.

 

I fail to understand how an _representative_ multistakeholder approach
fairly provides for the 

"represented" to have their positions considered in a manner that allows for
all participating to 

revise their views based on the discussion that occurs, and if this does not
occur than one may

argue that there isn't actual deliberative consideration going but simply a
dance of posturing

and  negotiation.  If there is actually a some demonstrable validity to the
_representative_

multistakeholder model, it would best to understand how it is supposed to
function in ideal 

circumstances and then assess whether this particular instance of selection
functioned in a

compatible manner.

 

You're asserting that this selection process lacks validity, but fail to
provide any clear model

of how a representative multistakeholder approach is supposed to work.   I'm
presuming that

the burden of "being represented" must lie with each party; i.e. regardless
of the number or 

particular folks chosen, it is incumbent upon everyone to seek out
representatives and educate 

them on your views and positions. Logically, it cannot be otherwise, or each
& every party could 

simply disagree with representation and demand to be their own
representative.   If it is supposed 

to work in some other manner involving objective criteria for how
representation is chosen, then

I know I'd like to understand those criteria before trying to pass judgement
on "validity" of any 

representative multistakeholder selection process.

 

FYI,

/John

 

Disclaimer:  My views alone.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140118/fd63ed24/attachment.html>