<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ...<div><br></div><div>But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ...</div><div><br></div><div>In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak?</div><div><br></div><div>Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful?</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><div><br></div><div><br><div></div></div></div>On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M <<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders are not representative enough. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. </div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy" target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</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">MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”</blockquote></div><br><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"></div><div><div dir="ltr"><br><br></div></div>
</div></div>
____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></blockquote></div><br></body></html>