<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Yes, to Jeanette's comments below... and to add, what also seems new is<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> *the intent to formalize MSism as a method of formal decision making in areas very much outside the narrowly technical<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> *the intent to substitute this for other methods of formal decision making<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> *the presentation of MSism as an update on other forms of decision making for example as "enhanced democracy" or "post-democratic"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> *the identification of MSism as a specific response to a wide range of problems with current democratic processes rather than one tool/method among many for enhancing consultative processes<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> *the attempt to implement this method across the board in a specific sphere, Internet Governance, but with strong implications of it being applicable in much much wider spheres<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> *the launching of a widely based seemingly coordinated campaign in support of the above<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>In short, as Jeanette points out, the MS model of broadening the base and methodology of consultation is a very old one, turning it into an "ism" and a movement is something very new.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Issues of direct democracy are I think tangential to discussions of MSism and certainly are not relevant to my broader arguments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>The simple opposition between the MS model and representative democracy is a strawman argument. As I’ve said repeatedly MS processes have their place and representative democracy has its problems particularly with somewhat complex (technical etc.) and fast moving issue areas.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>However, the attempt to stampede the world towards a radical broad scale substitution of MSism for current democratic practice would appear to have motives much beyond an improvement in the management of the IANA function, for example, or responding to flaws in current democratic processes—motives perhaps (as per the two papers I pointed to) of finding a way to formally include global Internet corporations in global Internet decision making. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>If responding to flaws in existing practice were the only concern then the appropriate approach would be to address the flaws rather than a complete substitution as is evidently being promoted at least by some.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><i>...something is happening here<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoPlainText><i>But you don’t know what it is<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoPlainText><i>Do you, Mister Jones?<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoPlainText><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p><p class=MsoPlainText>http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/ballad-thin-man<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>M<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: discuss-bounces@1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann<br>Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 6:20 AM<br>To: McTim<br>Cc: 1Net List<br>Subject: Re: [discuss] What is MSism?</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Hi McTim,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Am 28.03.2014 13:07, schrieb McTim:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <cc list trimmed as per good netiquette><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Your insistence that MSism is a new pheonomenon in IG ignores the <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> history of the past 40 years.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I'd say it is a new term for a phenomenon much older than the past 40 years. Parliamentary hearings, for example, often follow the multistakeholder approach. So does the German parliamentary inquiry commission. What seems more recent is the idea to adapt this model to transnational regulation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> It is clear that many of us (most of us I am guessing) on 1Net prefer <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> direct democracy:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Is it? I certainly wouldn't. I think it is impossible for a modern complex society to govern itself solely through direct forms of democracy. It is not even clear whether direct democracy would be more democratic given the little interest large parts of society have in matters of collective concern.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Global issues such as the management of the IANA functions will probably never attract attention beyond a small minority. Concepts such as representative versus direct democracy might be simply too big for the small community dealing with this issue. Still, the future process and the institutional architecture have to be transparent, reliable, accountable and thus legitimate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>jeanette<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy)[1] is a form of <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> democracyin which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to arepresentative <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> policy initiatives.[2]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Given that 1Net is all about MSism:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> "As part of the multistakeholder approach, /1net is hosting an open, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> global onlineforum about Internet governance. Together, we can develop <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> a framework that will help grow and strengthen our interconnected <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> world in the public interest. "<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> source: 1net.org<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> I doubt that this is really open to debate on this list.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Given my experience in MS processes (including WSIS) over the last<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> decade+ it is clear to me that the MS model is one that works far<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> better in protecting an open Internet than representative democracy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Those MS processes aren't about power, but largely about which ideas <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> are better than others (WSIS was an exception to this rule).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> YMMV.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>discuss mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>discuss@1net.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>