Louis Pouzin (well)
pouzin at well.com
Tue Mar 4 23:14:19 UTC 2014
This survey is a miserable mascarade. Why waste time discussing it ?
- - -
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at reedsmith.com>wrote:
> A point-by-point debate on the Montevideo Statement would be fruitful.
> Even this "survey," flawed though it is, could be fruitful in examining the
> range of voices here.
> Using the results as the basis for anything more than an internal exercise
> is not fruitful. Using this as the primary basis for a statement
> "representative of /1net's view" (that is "view" (singular) not "views"
> plural) is unconscionable.
> Consider the process (copied below with my comments at >>) - at least as
> flawed as the survey:
> Process of converging on the content of the statement:
> · An online survey gives everyone the opportunity to review each
> sentence within the draft statement. You can simply agree with it
> (obviously the preferred response), you can "Agree but..." and provide some
> brief feedback, or you can disagree and explain why you feel would need to
> change to the wording in order for you to agree.
> >>"obviously the preferred response"? "obviously the preferred
> response"?? "obviously the preferred response"??? Ladies and Gentlemen, we
> are being railroaded.
> >> "You can simply agree with it" Those who agree are not required to
> explain their views (I guess because it is "obviously the preferred
> response"), but if you have the temerity to disagree (even slightly) you
> must explain yourself. Hardly neutral.
> · That survey will run from now until the end of Tuesday (23:45
> at which point it will close.
> >> Ridiculously short time-frame.
> · The results from the survey will be analyzed to see what changes
> could be made to accommodate different views - and statistics
> released to show what the feedback was (comments will be published
> but not attributed).
> >> Analyzed by whom? The Great and Powerful Oz? The man behind the
> curtain?? And why is the default that the Montevideo re-mix is the "base
> state" that might be changed. And changed to what? And will we
> surveymonkey-slaves ever see the reworked statements? (Answer: no, see
> · On Thursday, a reformed statement will be put to a second
> survey sent
> to Steering Committee members who will act as representatives of
> their stakeholder groups in deciding yes or no to specific
> >> If the SC member are going to act as representatives of their
> stakeholder groups, how will they have enough time to get feedback from
> these stakeholders? I have yet to see a single communication from the
> "private sector" reps (as a group) to the private sector hoi polloi down
> here in discuss-land. Helluva time to work out a communications protocol.
> >> SC members only vote "yes" or "no" - no chance to move or refine the
> statements? So we have a tyranny of the majority (whatever happened to
> consensus driven bottom up multistakeholderism?) and the SC turned into
> high-functioning surveymonkeys. And is it a simple majority? Or a
> supermajority? What about minority views?
> · That survey will close Friday and /1net coordinator Adiel
> will review the results and decide what can be put forward to the
> NetMundial meeting as representative of /1net's view.
> >> Ah, here is the Great and Powerful Oz. How does this become one
> person's decision, that never comes back to the SC or the people? I know
> that Adiel is working hard on this /1net thing and that work is much
> appreciated, but effort does not translate into power.
> I don't think that anything valid can come out of this process. I've
> worked within the system (by responding to the survey), but I am tempted to
> look for a bottle of vodka, an alcohol-soaked rag and a match....
> Greg Shatan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss