<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>Do I need to say how utterly preposterous is the following.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>First we have the statement "some form of multistakeholderism is appropriate for any Internet governance issue"... err "some <i>form</i> of multistakeholderim"... exactly how many "forms" are there and do they have different, species, families, genuses--or perhaps there are 98 or 106 or 118 as in Mendeleeyev’s periodic table, or perhaps there are infinite numbers as in the number of the names of god or the number of angels dancing on the heads of pins…. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>And then “any Internet governance issue”… is that any possible Internet governance issue, any practical Internet governance issue, any governance issue that our friends in the US State Department might want to attribute as “Internet governance” or…. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Then we have a totally new term--"uni-multistakeholder system"--one that I've never seen before and which evidently Mr. Google has never heard of either... no hits among the several billion websites. No definition just plunked in their to shore up a very very leaking argument (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle">epicycling</a> anyone?).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>And then we have “What is most problematic is the view that multistakeholderism only consists of one model” … problematic to who exactly? Evidently not to the proponents of MSism for whom a governance system that has been in evolution for 1000 years or so and currently among other things is bestirring the energies and hopes of 1.3 or so billion people in India ,among a couple of billion other devotees elsewhere in the world, is something that can be casually discarded in favor of a will o’ the whisp which evidently has as many forms as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Rand">Sally Rand</a> had bubbles.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>And then we have this one… “Each issue has an appropriate form of the multistakeholder model, different sets of actors, roles and responsibilities”… each issue has its own private Multistakeholder model… hmmm… so how is that determined, who makes the choice, who does the vetting, who gets to play at being a stakeholder … does all of this appear as by magic… Houdini as the guiding force of MSism conjuring up a new and of course “appropriate” form at will and on call…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>And going on we have this “The difficulty is coming to consensus on the proper mix.” Yep, I’m sure given the infinite number of models and the equally infinite number of possible issues and the virtually infinite number of potential participants reaching that hallowed ground, a… (pause for drum rolls) Multistakeholder consensus will very likely be difficult; unless of course, as would inevitably be the case, a small group of privileged insiders would get together and decide what the “consensus” will be and then having announced this to the waiting and expectant multitudes go on to reap the benefits of their ever so pomo post-democratic form of decision making.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>And then just in case someone has been able to follow the discussion we have the following caveat “Just wanted to make sure we knew that we did not have universal agreement on your statement.”… well dah, yah… I’m sure that at least one of the angels dancing on the head of one of the infinite pins is almost certain to disagree and there tragically goes our “universal agreement”, sigh…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>But we go on… “I think that multistakeholderism, in its variety of expressions and modalities of participatory democracy, is the only way forward possible”.. and by this time I’m completely lost we have the infinite forms of MSism and now we have the “variety” of expressions and modalities of “participatory democracy”… this is starting to sound like the Kabbalah evoking the infinite names of G@d and his infinite qualities each of which in turn has an infinite number of forms… are we getting close … is this finally a way of understanding exactly what MSism might be.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>And finally we have this one “Anything else leaves some relevant actors outside the solution and is fundamentally anti-democratic”… yes, I agree, anyone who disagrees with any of the above in all its clarity and precision is cast out into the darkest and deepest circles of hades never again to have access to the shining light of this new, improved and wondrous form of “post-democracy”…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Well I guess it’s back to Golem worship for me.<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><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>-----Original Message-----<br>From: discuss-bounces@1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 12:48 PM<br>To: discuss@1net.org<br>Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] [ciresearchers] NETmundial documentsonline for comment</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><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> *From:*Ian Peter [<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> I agree with your point Michael. I am travelling now, but I think you <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> should make the point in NetMundial document somehow that extending <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> multistakeholderism to all aspects on governance “on the internet” <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> could be problematic and does not have universal agreement.<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>Of course no point of view has universal agreement, no matter how small or large the group.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I beleive that some form of multistakeholderism is appropriate for any Internet governance issue. I argue that a uni-stakeholder system is _never_ appropriate for the Internet. Or anywhere else for that matter.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Though I would agree that extending any one system to the Internet is going to be problematic. What is most problematic is the view that multistakeholderism only consists of one model, or that any form of the model is the solution to all issues. Each issue has an appropriate form of the multistakeholder model, different sets of actors, roles and responsibilities. The difficulty is coming to consensus on the proper mix.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Just wanted to make sure we knew that we did not have universal agreement on your statement. I may be alone, but I think that multistakeholderism, in its variety of expressions and modalities of participatory democracy, is the only way forward possible. Anything else leaves some relevant actors outside the solution and is fundamentally anti-democratic.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>avri<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>