<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 13 October 2014 11:39 PM,
David Cake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F99135E1-38A4-4110-A7BF-3804D419135D@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Seemed to almost entirely be a criticism of the US govts hypocrisy
in talking up its commitment to multi-stakeholderism while
simultaneously pursuing lobbyist led goals by other means.
<div>As a criticism of US govt hypocrisy, its fine.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks David, that was the primary purpose of the posting.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F99135E1-38A4-4110-A7BF-3804D419135D@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div> As a criticism of multi-stakeholderism, its incoherent. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If it is just incoherence that is your problem, you may like to read
the following rather well argued and supported critique of
multistakeholderism (MSism)<br>
<br>
"State of Davos: The camel's nose in the tents of global governance"
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_davos_chapter.pdf">http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_davos_chapter.pdf</a><br>
<br>
What is interesting is that it critiques practically every currently
practised aspect of MSism in the global IG space, without ever
referring to IG. Shows how MSism is not some special state of
governance associated with the Internet's oft-claimed 'special
nature'. It was not even invented by the IG guys... It was invented
by hard neolibs of Davos kind, for obvious reasons. This is a
governance model proposed by the 1 % , which IG civil society, for a
variety of reasons, has fallen prey to. <br>
<br>
Equal footing MSism that actually aspires to participate equally in
public policy decision making came to the IG space after it begun to
get spoken in the WEF, especially in the Global Redesign Initiative
of the WEF. I think that it started to make clear claims in the IG
space around 2009-10. Till then people were mostly just seeking/
ensuring no 'new' policy development or no 'new' policy institution
development. It is post Davos theorisations of the Global Redesign
Initiative kind that the brave new claim begun to be made in the IG
space that corporates should actually participate in public policy
decision making as equals. The recent misadventures of IG MSism
towards Davos and WEF were rather an obvious thing waiting to
happen. They are the same thing, more or less, with some good spin
applied here and there, which would be applied right now since the
first - over brash - effort of Davos to take over the global IG
space suffered some set back. It was just a tactical mistake. It
will be corrected. Powers are with them! <br>
<br>
Happy reading..<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F99135E1-38A4-4110-A7BF-3804D419135D@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I particularly like the way it says we should have open and
transparent negotiation - and then in the next paragraph says we
should exclude Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc. Open, but only
to people they like? Essentially, advocating the same behaviour
they just decried in the US govt. Openness is like free speech
-- you are either for or against it, and if you are only in
favour of it for people you like, you aren't for it. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And, of course, the author says it is terrible if there are
back room, secret negotiations - but also says lets exclude the
largest commercial organisations from open and transparent
negotiations, meaning non-public efforts would be their only
option. Anyone think that recipe works?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But hey, look at the solution the author proposes - just
change the entire economy so most commercial organisations are
organised as workers collectives. Anyone else think that should
be our focus for action, just hope we can replace Facebook,
Google, etc with workers collectives?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>David</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On 13 Oct 2014, at 12:31 am, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <font face="Verdana">A
report in the Pirate Party International's magazine on
what is calls as US style multistakeholderism..<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://piratetimes.net/democracy-and-hypocrisy-the-us-governments-multi-stakeholder-model/">http://piratetimes.net/democracy-and-hypocrisy-the-us-governments-multi-stakeholder-model/</a>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font> </div>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>