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

[Mawaki Chango]

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>wrote:

> [cc:s trimmed]
> If we're going to invoke philosophy of science,
> then I state my belief that a scientific theory is true only if it
> works.  More importantly for this current discussion, I think a
> political structure is good at least partly to the extent that it
> works.  And despite my very deep reservations about the way
> representation can work in represtentative multistakeholder systems,
> some kind of multistakeholder approach has been working in many
> different forms for the Internet so far.  Therefore, I say the burden
> of proof most certainly lies with those who want to replace it in
> favour of something else.  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.
>
>
This is interesting. I would like to know: How can one assert that
something (A) works if that thing (A) has never been put at work or has
never been afforded the opportunity to be put at work? Did the
"multistakeholder model" have to prove it works -- or works better than any
known model of representative participation at that point in time -- before
being implemented? If not, shouldn't that have been the implication of what
is said above?

Mawaki


>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/9040bfca/attachment-0001.html>