<html>
<body>
Michael,<br><br>
beware that multi-stakeholderism is an alternative to voting: a fractal
decision path. Nothing more (<b>fractal means that its rules are
independent from scale</b>). <br>
* Voting gives eveyone a voice, and every voice counts equal. <br>
* This is not the case of MSism. It tries to make every position fairly
considered. <br><br>
What is not clear is the decision mechanism itself. You can have
different rules when you vote: 2/3 majority, right of veto, two votes
(House and Senate), etc.<br><br>
The WSIS has not detailed these rules. It assumed it would be by
"enhanced cooperation" (equivalent of a Congress, but did not
say if each group would have an internal consultation). In Europe we have
the French "concertation" concept that develops; it is somewhat
near from "participation" (the Arnstein's ladder may be
consulted).<br><br>
Your remarks about techies are very important. However, the model is not
from techies: the model is universal, it is to address complexity and is
as old as its monarchy and democracy alternatives. Techies only have a
different obligation. They cannot escape problems. They MUST resolve them
and translate their resolution into a mechanical solution process, while
human directly handle them and can have delaying fuzzy attitudes.
However, the lack of fuzzyness in technical issues is only in binary
arithmetic: the deeper you go in technics the more you face probabilities
(TCP is here to secure IP). This is going to be more and more the case as
we are involved in multilinguistic, semantic, intercomprehension,
etc.<br><br>
This shows that all the techies are not from the IETF, what the Technical
Coalition seems to presume. <br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
At 01:08 24/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thanks for this John... I have a
couple of comments which are rather to do<br>
with MSism overall rather than the below which is good as far as it
goes...<br>
and given their nature I think they are perhaps worth circulating to
the<br>
large Governance list.<br><br>
The first is that the MS model in itself is exclusive/exclusionary in
that<br>
many potential/useful/even necessary voices aren't included for a variety
of<br>
reasons--they don't know about the process, they don't have the<br>
(language/conceptual/technical etc.) skills/confidence/technology to<br>
participate. In these instances a the "passive" MS model
doesn't work since<br>
what is needed is a pro-active engagement which animates/enables the<br>
non-participant and thus gives them the means to contribute... There are
I<br>
know, a lot of issues with this and to a degree the above goes to the
heart<br>
of the MS approach but it remains a very very (and to my mind
potentially<br>
lethal limitation of MSism etc.<br><br>
The second is that the model is one that strives for/even requires<br>
"consensus"... That being the case there are tremendous
incentives towards<br>
consensus and equally if not more significant, disincentives against<br>
divergence/conflict. While in some instances consensus is
desireable and<br>
useful it is not something on which one can build unless one chooses to
try<br>
to artificially bury/bulldoze dissenting/diverging voices and<br>
non-commensurable interests (which in the real world in many many and
not<br>
insignificant issues are necessary...<br><br>
I think it is important to recognize the difference between
"consensus" as<br>
in everyone finding a basis of agreement and for example, brokerage
where<br>
there are tradeoffs between conflicting positions or as another
example<br>
where there is a simple agreement to disagree (the notion of the
loyal<br>
opposition for example... and where the political democratic process
allows<br>
time for the evolution of dominant/majority positions for
example.<br><br>
I had a very useful discussion yesterday with Constance Bomellier on
this<br>
issue and what I realized in the course of the discussion is the degree
to<br>
which the MS model is at its core, its very DNA a techie's/engineer's
model<br>
with its impatience with complexity and "fuzziness", it's
belief that there<br>
are single simple solutions to very complex problems (and diverse<br>
interests), its drive for a single simple outcome when many outcomes have
to<br>
be seen as iterative, long term and even self-reflexive
processes.<br><br>
I don't deny the value of the MS model for technical issues, but I
see<br>
extreme danger in an unthinking and uncritical stampede toward MSism
in<br>
policy areas way way beyond the technical as is so evident here at the
IGF.<br><br>
Rough consensus and running code would not have allowed for the long
term<br>
process that overcame child labour, created the public health measures
that<br>
conquered typhus, nor would it have ended slavery. Whether it can ensure
an<br>
open, transparent, equitable, rule of law based and human rights
protecting<br>
Internet for all is to my mind a very very open question and
certainly<br>
something to be discussed rather than assumed.<br><br>
When challenged here at the IGF and elsewhere, the proponents of the
MS<br>
model indicate that of course, MSism is a constituent element of
democratic<br>
governance...<br><br>
I'm still waiting for anyone to give a coherent explanation of what
that<br>
relationship is in a practical sense.<br><br>
M<br><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: John Curran
[<a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jcurran@istaff.org</a>] <br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:16 PM<br>
To: michael gurstein<br>
Subject: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder
engagement<br>
model"<br><br>
I would be interested in your suggestions, comments, edits.<br>
/John<br><br>
=== One view of the "multistakeholder engagement
model"<br><br>
. Open and Inclusive: Discussions are open to all and structured to<br>
encourage the broadest range of relevant inputs from all interested
parties.<br>
Input provided is valued and heard by all. All documents are freely<br>
available online. Processes for public comment and remote participation
are<br>
provided wherever feasible, and without requirements for participation
other<br>
than decorum.<br><br>
. Consensus-based: Discussions allow for all views to be considered
and<br>
addressed, leading towards common understanding and consensus among<br>
participants. Discussions are structured to avoid domination by any<br>
community of interest.<br><br>
. Transparent and Accountable: Processes for discussions and
decision-<br>
making are documented, publicly available, and followed. Easily
accessible<br>
records of decisions and the materials used for reaching those decisions
are<br>
provided. Due process is provided to appeal decisions where processes
were<br>
not followed. <br><br>
<br><br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>