[discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched)
gurstein at gmail.com
Sat Jan 18 21:45:18 UTC 2014
You obviously haven't been reading your (Thomas) Kuhn or (Paul) Feyerabend
or for that matter (Michel) Foucault.
It is precisely in those areas that you are dismissing as not being of
interest--where 1net i.e. "recommends topics to be worked on (whether within
1net or wrt Brazil), decides on content for the web site, and encourages
decorum on the mailing list" - where 1Net is firmly and directly exerting
(ideological/political) control-in ways that it was these authors' life's
work to demonstrate and document and critique.
Kuhn: recommending topics or rather not recommending certain topics: (The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
Feryerabend: choosing certain or rather not choosing other (and more perhaps
contentious) topics; Against Method and Science in a Free Society
Foucault: managing "decorum" as a method of social control (Discipline and
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of John Curran
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:22 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model
validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site
On Jan 18, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan <
<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
To the extent that the 1net steering committee recommends topics to be
worked on (whether within 1net or wrt Brazil), decides on content for
the web site, and encourages decorum on the mailing list, I am not
particularly concerned about the specific committee members, and
believe that their "representative" nature will not be overly taxed.
If the 1net steering takes material positions on topics of discussion
without those positions first reaching consensus in this community, then
we will have a major issue because the validity of representation would
always be open to question; the only way I know to solve this is via a
formal membership and election process to determine fair representation.
> An argument that the current system is not perfect is by no means an
> argument that it must be replaced wholesale, any more than troubling
> inconsistencies at the edges of theory were trouble for Newtonian
> mechanics in the absence of a much better alternative.
Note - I am not arguing that the _representative_ multistakeholder model
does not work, only that the validity of any representatives appointed via
nomination process has its limits and thus should be used for coordination
and administration, rather than material discussions of topics (which are
far more appropriate for the _open_ multistakeholder model.)
Disclaimer: My views alone.
discuss mailing list
<mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss