<div dir="ltr">Michael,<div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:47 AM, 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"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I’m still waiting </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>If you continue to use this hectoring badgering style of discourse, you may be waiting for Godot!</div>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></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 lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed system (democracy) but one where there is at least a track record, very considerable theoretical development, an enormous ecology concerning Transparency and Accountability with a pig in a poke (multistakeholderism) which has no (applicable) track record, absolutely no theoretical development or underpinnings, and whose only ecology is highly questionable since it suffers from, shall we say, significant transparency and accountability “deficits”.</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Obviously you haven't participated in any of the truly MS fora in which I have engaged. If you had, or had bothered to do some research, you would find no lack of transparency or accountability. I note that you are in the ARIN region, why don't you noodle around that website to see what you can find in regard to lack of transparency, etc. I think you will be hard-pressed to find any "deficits" therein.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Never one to shy from flame-bait, the most obvious rationale is that MS processes have delivered </div><div>the current Internet, which most of us think is a pretty useful thing.</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 lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with existing processes by various highly questionable actors—tax dodging private sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted) tech community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not only this but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over (“consensus based”) public policy outputs to those self-same private sector giants etc. etc.</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The above makes zero sense. I thought you felt that the status quo was fine for lots of folks who you dislike, now you are saying they are impatient with existing processes?</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 lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending time thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other reasons for discarding democracy which we aren’t being made aware of.</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Some of us see MSism as deepening democracy, but you can't accept the sincerity of others positions on this. Instead, you fire random, vague accusations of corruption. </div>
<div><br></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 lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> (That the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes MSism 12 times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various of those party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Maybe those who wrote it feel that MSism IS a form of democracy.</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</div></div>