[discuss] What kind of "governance" do you want? (was Re: What is MSism?)
springer at inlandnet.com
Mon Mar 31 16:31:48 UTC 2014
Thank you, Sir, for this kind of obviously well reasoned and above all,
It is evident that the product requires a lot of time and effort and I,
for one, very much appreciate it.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014, 'Andrew Sullivan' wrote:
> I think this is my last remark on this topic, since I'm no longer
> convinced we're making progress. But just so it's clear why I think that:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:07:02PM -0700, michael gurstein wrote:
>> premises and insights. Rather I would have the feeling that their support is
>> more in the form of finding a methodology for continuing and deepening the
>> deep corruptions of which they are so evident beneficiaries and which folks
>> like you and I are increasingly disgusted with.
>> nged-the-political-game.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> " recently? Even deeply
>> flawed (accountable) democratic systems have better outcomes for the 99%
>> than ones controlled by plutocrats.
>> As for proposing a system of governance (representation), I think starting
>> from traditional democratic structures and processes and then adding
>> capabilities (as for example technology enhancements) and adjustments so as
>> to reform the system's operations is probably the place to start.
> The above appears to be saying that, whatever "MSism" is, it tends to
> include those who have funding to participate; the passages do not say
> why things might be different in "traditional democratic structures",
> though your email provides the case of the US _Citizens United_
> decision as an example of pernicious influence of money in decision
> making. I don't think you've addressed at all the point at that least
> some multi-stakeholder examples are set up to encourage broad and deep
> participation by interested parties (I think I've asked you more than
> once to address this point).
> Your mail seems to be arguing that, since the influence of money is
> generally pernicious, and since "MSism" encourages participation by
> people with sponsorship, and since there is a pernicious influence of
> money in traditional democratic systems like representative
> democracies, therefore we need more traditional democratic systems in
> Internet governance. It's possible I've overlooked some important
> subtlety, but to me that position is deeply incoherent.
> Finally, I still don't get why Internet governance can't use the
> mechanisms that have worked so well for other decision-making on the
> Internet. That seems to me the biggest flaw in the above kind of
> argument. The ways in which vastly different interests regularly come
> together on the Internet and work out their differences and thereby
> make progress for the Internet is an important bit of evidence in
> favour of that style of working. It's been effective. That should be
> one of our most important values: does an approach work? It works for
> technical decisions, yes, but it also appears to work for policy
> issues: it's how RIRs work out their policies. Without addressing
> this fundamental question of, "Does it work?" those who agree with the
> position you seem to be espousing will continue (in my opinion) to
> have a very weak argument.
> Best regards,
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss