<html>
<head>
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.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;">To whom is anybody at all in
this caucus accountable for say wrecking attempts to achieve consensus? </p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">And after you fasten
accountability what would you then do to whoever is held accountable for
whatever? </p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">That the caucus itself works at
all is because of the same forces that make a multistakeholder approach
work <br>
</p>
</div>
<div style="color: black;">
<p
style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 10pt 0;">On
November 4, 2014 5:35:37 AM "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=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The
issue is not “participation” but “accountability”. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>To
whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to
whomever has paid for their participation? Are their formal procedures for
accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one
group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about
the nature of the participation/representation of another group what
measures are available to challenge that participation and under what
terms? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Who
is accountable to ensure “the public interest”?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>How
is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to
would the entire process be accountable?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Of
course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer each
of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still
waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held
accountable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Sivasubramanian
M [mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 24, 2014
12:36 PM<br><b>To:</b> michael gurstein<br><b>Cc:</b> Jeremy Malcolm;
governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits@lists.bestbits.net;
forum@justnetcoalition.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] [governance]
Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot
joint recommendations<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'>It is not fair to
say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the
opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place
for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and
appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both
under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the
evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the
participating stakeholders </span><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#333333'></span><span
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'>are not
representative enough.</span><span
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'> </span><span
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'>The contrary of
what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the
framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the
opportunity for EFFECTIVE
participation. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br
clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a
href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy"
target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a><o:p></o:p></p><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Oct
24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein <<a
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>MSism as presented bears absolutely
no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the
opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective
participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of
“stakeholdership”<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#333333'></span><span
style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p
class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>