<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div>On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:09 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br><div>On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:07 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra">SNIP</div></div></blockquote><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">. So democracy as a concept cannot be frozen into the practice of voting as we know it today (one person, one vote) in the sole context of nation-sates.</div>
</div></blockquote><br></div>It may not be frozen into the practice of voting-- there is a huge amount of literature and practice of participatory democracy that says exactly that.. But, can we freeze in not having a vote for corporates - in fact multiple and exclusive votes, where ordinary people do not have votes... That is MS decision making... </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>By that sentence plus the phrase that says MSism may be more, or less, democratic --as indeed the gist of a good chunk of my message-- I was in fact addressing the party that reacts against any reference to democracy in the Ig context (as seems to be the case with Milton reacting to EC's Neelie Kroes' blog post on the NETmundial outcome draft document.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>So don't get me wrong: I am not satisfied with everything about MSism although I remain open to the fact that some implementation(s) of it may work well in some setting(s). And as I have suggested, I can't even effectively compare Democracy and Multi-stakeholderism because, as I said, it seems to me we're conflating different levels of analysis (it's even worse when one thinks Democracy is something that is necessarily confined within nation-state boundaries for government affairs.) Furthermore, the simple word "democracy" (the rule of the people) tells me a good deal about the intent, goal and set of values being in play, while the simple word "multistakeholderism" only tells me that multiple stakeholders are involved. It doesn't even say "multi-stakeholder-cracy" and it's much easier for so many people around the world to understand the notion of "the people" than it is for us here to even agree on what constitutes "stakeholder" (let alone for people at large to understand what it is.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>And for those who think they can effectively compare MSism with Democracy (putting them on the same plane of analysis), I would like someone to tell me (indeed demonstrate) how you're going to use MSism to elect the US President and members of Congress -- in a way that will convince American people that this will better serve their interests as opposed to what they have right now.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Further on that line of reflection, one might wonder what are those state Republicans (still in the US) intent on vote suppression or making it harder to some people to vote at elections up to? And what about all the gerrymandering of the districts? Are they being less democratic in a democracy, or more democratic? Are they having their own version of MSism? (I'm asking this not to be provocative but because it was my impression that some people see any reference to voting, equated with Democracy, as something counter to MSism.) And if they're just messing around for pure political/election gains (IOW, making "rational choices") what would be the (principled?) response of Democracy to that and what would be MSism's?</div>
<div><br></div><div>[Again, the boundaries for the questions in the above 2 paragraphs to make sense, in my view, are delineated by the thinking that assumes both models are comparable in such a way that one can be said to be better than and to supersede the other.] </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br><br>Why do we need to go beyond participatory democracy as the means of fulfilling the ideal of democracy and rather jump to MSism which is simply not democratic in a thousand way.....</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, could you please elaborate on how you would concretely apply participatory democracy to decision-making about the Internet and all what we're referring to as its governance? Sorry if you've done this elsewhere and I haven't read it. Otherwise, my sense is that all your criticism is being construed as advocacy for intergovernmental mode of governance, notably though traditional treaty-making.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't have answers to all the questions. I still have a lot of thinking to do and a lot to learn. But those are the things I can say so far regarding the question of MSism and Democracy. Democracy is much older and has delivered many goods, and I don't think anybody can say (nor do I think anybody is saying) it's time to throw that away. MSism is much younger (in its infancy) and still needs to prove itself in the eyes of countless number of people. However, I don't think one can replace the other because I see them conceptually and to some extent operationally at different levels. That's why I can conceive of a MSism instance that is less democratic, even anti-democratic, as well as I can conceive of one that is more democratic or maybe even enhancing Democracy in an already existing form. It will all depend on the specifics on the implementation at hand: the setting, what is in a "stakeholder" and how do they impact the decision-making process, to mention the most obvious ones. </div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br>On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>> MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could<br>> have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing<br>> after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after<br>
> tyranny, aristocracy, etc.)<br><br>I am one who does argues that Multistakeholderism is not just another<br>decision making process.<br><br>I also do not claim in is the next big thing after democracy. I argue<br>that it is a form of democracy. </blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I cannot fundamentally disagree with that but I might say it differently: Multistakeholderism may be a form of exercise of democracy.</div><div>For it to be effectively so, we would need (as I mention above) consensus on who are the stakeholders (or even what is a stakeholder) and how do they impact decisions, etc. Are all the conditions in place for everyone to have equal chance to participate and influence the outcome, if they're so inclined? It is those details that will make MSism a form of Democracy or not.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><snip>.<br><br>I do agree that there is not just one form of the multistakeholder<br>
model, but argue that there are attributes of Multistakeholderism as<br>participatory democracy that are necessary.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you think we could initiate collaborative work with the aim to put together a table which will include those attributes as well as the points of criticism?</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><span><font color="#888888"></font></span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div>
<div><br>
On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:41 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could<br>
have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing<br>
after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after<br>
tyranny, aristocracy, etc.)<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br></div>
You had in your email sought focussing on actual practices... Therefore you need to look at practices of MSism... It is indeed the next thing after democracy, and NOT democracy... MSism gives big business a veto on public policy making. This kind of thing is impossible to even mention in a democratic discourse.. But the same unmentionable has been dressed by employment of huge expenditure of resources in the respectable clothes if MSism.<br>
<br>
Do you disagree that MSism as being practiced in its 'equal footing' model (1) gives veto power to big business and (2) such a thing is unattainable in democratic discourse and practice..<br></div></div></blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with (2). I haven't seen a formal veto power accorded to any stakeholder group but in some instances there is de facto something bordering a veto. Based on my experience with the GNSO Council at ICANN, particularly with the WHOIS policy debate. It seemed that business would push for yet another task force, and yet another working group, etc. until they get what they wanted (and the system allowed for that kind of manoeuvre.) The issue was so contentious we had to take a vote and their party lost. Their refusal to take a No for an answer led the Chair to accept, at the Marrakesh meeting (2006? or 07) the request that those who voted for the definition of Whois that won the vote to explain their... vote. I'm sure he meant it to be a kind of pedagogical engagement with the public at large. But think about that: you have to publicly declare your vote and explain it on the request of people who reject the result (and only those who voted for that result were asked to do that, obviously because of what they voted for.) I objected and declined. It made me feel like I was a character in a novel by Milan Kundera in which the setting is the old (pre-Vaclav Havel) Czechoslovakia -- The Joke (La Plaisanterie). </div>
<div><br></div><div>That was my closest encounter with MSism ;) but it has been years now and I want to believe things didn't stay that way (so I don't mean the above as a wholesale characterization.) Or at least we can contribute to shaping them in a better direction (though I must say the way you describe what has been happening to the NETmundial draft document is alarming.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mawaki</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<br>
Now you may say that I am speaking about entirely imaginary models of MSism, and creatign strawmen of MSism...<br>
<br>
Well, no..<br>
<br>
On the BestBit list an elaborate model has been developed and presented, latest in response to the leaked NetMundial draft (did you also support this model?) which creates a multistakeholder screening mechanism for taking up any public policy issue.. Does this not give big business a veto on what matters can be taken for public policy treatment? Is this democratic?<br>
<br>
Second, the NetMundial draft document seeks public policy making through consensus basis alone - which is an multistakeholder consensus on equal footing... It says that processes of governance have to be first be agreed by all stakeholders (keep reading business when I say stakeholders bec it is they for whom these models are fashioned)....<br>
<br>
Now, is it democratic to give business (big business, no one asked my corner shop guy) such structural vetos over public policy making? What could be more democratic...<br>
<br>
Since you said devil is in the details, lets talk about the detail and the devil... Lets talk specifics, and these above are the specifics of MSism...<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder</font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>