[discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity

[michael gurstein]

Inline

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:44 PM
To: michael gurstein; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model
validity

 

[MG>] snip

> 

> */[MG>] you personalize this...

 

Only because of the context.

 

[MG>] ahh. yes, of course, ad hominems.

 

[MG>] snip

 

Still, I don't think that representation is the adequate model to select
people or groups. There is no limit to underrepresented, marginalized views
that deserve to be heard.

 

[MG>] could I point you as well to my upcoming blogpost "Multistakeholderism
for the powerful and well connected: Tyranny for everyone else".

 

M

 

jeanette

 

These issues are not about individuals

> or personalities but rather about deeper dare I say, "political"

> differences and clashes of interests that need to be reconciled in 

> order to move forward.. Attempts to by-pass or cover these over or 

> eliminate them through various postures of avoidance simply allow them 

> to fester and grow even more powerful and destructive.../*

> 

> Transparency is an obvious source of legitimacy, so might be the 

> reputation of candidates (i.e. those known for being open-minded, 

> constructive, competent and able to take other opinions than their own 

> on board. I am sure we can come up with ways to integrate views and 

> perspectives into the process that ensure are broader range than those 

> held by committee members.

> 

> */[MG>] again you reduce this to "personalities" -- is there a 

> specific reason for doing so? Perhaps because it is easier to 

> delegitimize/demonize an individual than to respond to a clearly 

> articulated political/interest position. /*

> 

> *//*

> 

> */And why do you not include the obvious characteristics of 

> fairness/natural justice; evident lack of systematic bias; obvious 

> attempts at broad based inclusion (and not simply formalized identity 

> based inclusion); and so on.  These would seem to be obvious and 

> self-evident pre-conditions for a legitimate process whatever methods 

> of "representation" (or not) are ultimately agreed upon./*

> 

> In short, I think we should drop representativeness as a criteria of 

> legitimacy and focus on other means of creating legitimate processes.

> 

> */[MG>] yes, as per the above./*

> 

> *//*

> 

> */M/*

> 

> jeanette

> 

> Am 18.01.14 22:01, schrieb Norbert Bollow:

> 

>  > John Curran <
<mailto:jcurran at istaff.org%20%3cmailto:jcurran at istaff.org>
jcurran at istaff.org <mailto:jcurran at istaff.org>> wrote:

> 

>  >

> 

>  >> 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.

> 

>  >

> 

>  > In my view, representative multistakeholder approaches are not 

> about

> 

>  > creating a broad discourse, but about populating, in a reasonably 

> fair

> 

>  > and balanced manner, committees and the like which for practical

> 

>  > reasons have only a quite limited number of seats.

> 

>  >

> 

>  > I posit that a reasonable way to implement a process for selecting

> 

>  > representatives is for each stakeholder category to organize a

> 

>  > randomly selected NomCom process, with each NomCom being tasked to

> 

>  > seek to choose a set of representatives who jointly represent the

> 

>  > breadth of perspectives of that stakeholder category as well as is

> 

>  > possible under the circumstances.

> 

>  >

> 

>  > Individuals who are close to one of the unavoidably fuzzy 

> boundaries

> 

>  > between stakeholder categories would get to choose which one of the

> 

>  > stakeholder category that are on offer in that particular context 

> fits

> 

>  > them best.

> 

>  >

> 

>  > I don't claim that this kind of approach would yield perfect

> 

>  > representation, but at least the imperfections would be random 

> rather

> 

>  > than systematic, and any bias in the pool of people who tend to

> 

>  > volunteer for serving on NomComs can be addressed by the very

> 

>  > democratic process that anyone who is concerned about such bias is

> 

>  > free to seek to convince other qualified people (who don't have 

> that

> 

>  > bias) to volunteer for future NomCom pools.

> 

>  >

> 

>  > Greetings,

> 

>  > Norbert

> 

>  >

> 

>  > _______________________________________________

> 

>  > discuss mailing list

> 

>  >  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org < <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
mailto:discuss at 1net.org>

> 

>  >  <http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

> 

>  >

> 

> _______________________________________________

> 

> discuss mailing list

> 

>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org < <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
mailto:discuss at 1net.org>

> 

>  <http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140118/babd8c9a/attachment-0001.html>