<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Jan 18, 2014, at 7:56 AM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">So in this instance the burden of proof surely falls not on those who are demonstrating that the “multistakeholder model” doesn’t provide an appropriate approach to governance but rather on those who are attempting to assert that it does…</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Actually, we're in agreement on that - i.e. the burden of proof should fall to those who are </div><div>attempting to assert the validity of the model. You're asserting that there could be a valid</div><div>representative multistakeholder selection process, but it somehow didn't happen in this </div><div>case.</div><div><br></div><div>I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for everyone (who wishes)</div><div>to present their views on a given topic, have those views considered based on their merits,</div><div>and allow all to ponder and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged.</div><div><br></div><div>I fail to understand how an _representative_ multistakeholder approach fairly provides for the </div><div>"represented" to have their positions considered in a manner that allows for all participating to </div><div>revise their views based on the discussion that occurs, and if this does not occur than one may</div><div>argue that there isn't actual deliberative consideration going but simply a dance of posturing</div><div>and negotiation. If there is actually a some demonstrable validity to the _representative_</div><div>multistakeholder model, it would best to understand how it is supposed to function in ideal </div><div>circumstances and then assess whether this particular instance of selection functioned in a</div><div>compatible manner.</div><div><br></div><div>You're asserting that this selection process lacks validity, but fail to provide any clear model</div><div>of how a representative multistakeholder approach is supposed to work. I'm presuming that</div><div>the burden of "being represented" must lie with each party; i.e. regardless of the number or </div><div>particular folks chosen, it is incumbent upon everyone to seek out representatives and educate </div><div>them on your views and positions. Logically, it cannot be otherwise, or each & every party could </div><div>simply disagree with representation and demand to be their own representative. If it is supposed </div><div>to work in some other manner involving objective criteria for how representation is chosen, then</div><div>I know I'd like to understand those criteria before trying to pass judgement on "validity" of any </div><div>representative multistakeholder selection process.</div><div><br></div><div>FYI,</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: My views alone.</div><div><br></div></body></html>