<html>
<head>
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body>
<div style="color: black;">
<div style="color: black;">
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Comparing a working stake in a
process to a rubber stamp oligarchy form of government is so wrong that I
can't quite react any further to this, but anyway.. <br>
</p>
</div>
<div style="color: black;">
<p
style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 10pt 0;">On
24 October 2014 3:14:08 pm "michael gurstein"
<gurstein@gmail.com> wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;"><div
class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Jeremy, <o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As you and
perhaps everyone well knows I have for several<u> years </u>both via these
email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time
getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “<i>Yes, I am
very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important
matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when
we see the right time and place to do so</i>.” <o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And I realize how
important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has
been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of
CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and
surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right
time and place” to give that definition!<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And it’s not as
though this is an inconsequential issue—it involves replacing Democracy as
the aspirational model of governance that has been in place for several
thousand years and has captured the loyalty, passion and aspirations of
millions of people worldwide—take a look at what is happening right today
in Hong Kong--with a will-o’-the-wisp undefined gleam in someone’s eye
whose provenance seems to be the corporate elite dominated World Economic
Forum and whose major cheerleaders appear to be the completely public
interest seeking US State Department.<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As for my
definition of MSism as governance by a self-selected elite, it is based on
my experience and analysis as extensively documented in my blog (and as
confirmed by several of the contributors to this thread). I’ll be pleased
to be persuaded otherwise as to this definition but simply rejecting it
without argument is equally trivial.<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>BTW, I’m still
waiting for any of the distinguished IG CS leaders to publicly avow or
disavow themselves of either Siva’s notion that MSism is an evolutionary
“replacement?” for democracy or Suresh’s definition of “stakeholder” as
consisting of those with a “stake” i.e. those who have actively contributed
to the object of the governance process—as defined of course by the
beneficiaries of these processes. (This it might not be noted and not
incidentally is directly parallel to the argument currently being made
against democratic governance in Hong Kong by C.J. Leung on behalf of the
ruling cadres of the PRC).<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Silence, even by
those who insist on being silent in their silence, is a very telling and
significant statement in a context such as this one. What it says is that
we can’t or don’t need to give a definition—we can proceed without one
because we have power, wealth and influence on our side—no one can make us,
or stop us and ultimately it doesn’t matter what you or anyone think or
do—MSism is, as the Queen of Hearts said, whatever we choose it to mean and
if you don’t like it well…<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>M<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original
Message-----<br>From: governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Malcolm<br>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 9:35 AM<br>To:
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>Subject: Re: [governance] Re:
[IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU
Plenipot joint recommendations</p><p
class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On 24/10/2014
8:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>
Why not try continuing the discussion, but temporarily banning the use
<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> of the word
"multistakeholderism" and all of its related terms? This
<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> would involve more words, more
typing, more time reading, but would <o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText>> save time in the long run because each contributor
to the discussion <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> would be forced
to describe exactly what he/she is talking about, and <o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText>> the discussion itself would be
clarified.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> (Other possible
candidates for the temporary ban are democracy and <o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText>> liberalism/ neo-liberalism)<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>If Michael
will stop inaccurately appending "(governance by self-selected
elites)" after every mention of multi-stakeholderism, then I'll stop
saying "so-called democracy (statism)". ;-)<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText>--<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Jeremy
Malcolm<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Senior Global Policy
Analyst<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Electronic Frontier
Foundation<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a
href="https://eff.org"><span
style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>https://eff.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"><span
style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>jmalcolm@eff.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Tel:
415.436.9333 ext 161<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>:: Defending
Your Rights in the Digital World ::<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p
class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p></div></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>