[bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

The term exists and is being widely used.  
I think we need to take control, to the extent possible, of the definition and direction of the effort.  We need to do what we can to stop the term from being abused and applied to things that are counter to the participatory decision goal we are trying to achieve.  I argue we should do that as opposed to running away when we see the term abused and co-opted.

Creating a new term or way of speaking is always satisfying, i love neologizing,  but it takes the discussion back to a starting point and any little bit that has been gained is risked.

avri


On 19 Oct 2013, at 10:29, michael gurstein wrote:

> Given what you say below Avri, which I agree with for the most part... I'm
> wondering what is added to the desireable and necessary discussion of
> democratic governance of and in the Internet by the introduction and use of
> the terminology of "Multistakeholderism" at all?
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 3:22 AM
> To: bestbits List
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants
> 
> 
> On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:14, michael gurstein wrote:
> 
>> I've been following these and associated discussions for some time now 
>> and this is the first time that I've ever seen the association that 
>> you are making below, Avri, between MSism and Participatory Democracy 
>> in fact when the subject has been discussed at all, my sense was that 
>> most MS advocates treated democracy in whatever manifestation with some
> contempt.
> 
> 
> To me, such a discussion is an example of a category mistake - comparing a
> part to the whole.
> 
> Representative Democracy, aka Indirect democracy, is just one form of
> democracy; though I do admit that these days when there is so little
> representative democracy in this world that is easy to forget - as citizens
> continue to strive everywhere to get at least that much from their ruling
> regimes.  At the other end of the scale in Direct Democracy, something that
> has long been considered an impossible goal in large scale movements -
> though something I think becomes possible as an universal, open& free,
> secure and private Internet is achieved - but this a ways away yet.
> 
> Participatory democracy, in my opinion, falls somewhere in the middle and
> includes elements of both of the other forms of democracy.  Ever since I got
> involved in Internet governance activities, before I know the term Internet
> governance, I have viewed participatory democracy as the evolving form we
> were engaged in.
> 
> There is no contempt for democracy. For my part, however, there is a belief
> that it does not go far enough in representing me as a citizen, a netizen,
> an advocate, a technical person, etc.  It does not go far enough in
> representing the aspects of my being beyond those of a body living in a
> constrained geographical space.  Another problem many of us with national
> representatives being in charge is that the bureaucrats that fill the spots
> in Internet governance, nice and dedicated though they may be, are a second
> derivative of indirect democracy, i.e. they are even more indirect.  They
> are often life time agency workers whose accountability to the demos is
> tenuous at best - though their boss may indeed be appointed by the elected
> representatives. Those who represent nations in Internet governance are, at
> best, accountable their boss, who is hopefully accountable (think of Yes,
> Minister examples here) to someone who may be accountable to election.
> 
> Another element is that the stakeholders, for want of a better term, are
> groups in their own right that should be democratic and accountable.
> Sometimes this may be done by representative democratic means, e.g. when the
> group is small enough or organized enough to scale elections.  Sometimes it
> may be direct democracy, or at least partially so in being open and
> accessible to all.  In most cases, a form of participatory democracy suited
> to the nature of the group will be the best option.
> 
> In this view, the multistakeholder model has always been a way to develop
> participatory democracy or at least one form of participatory democracy.  I
> don't say it works perfectly in terms of access, accountability and
> transparency but in many of the cases before us it works to a limit that
> needs to always be pushed forward.
> 
> So it someone tells me that national bureaucrats, with an occasional High
> Level Summit, are good enough to make the ITU  or something like it
> democratic, yes, I will think that inappropriate and may show some contempt
> for the argument.  But if you tell me that some of the equal  partners in
> multistakeholder Internet governance are representative democracies, whether
> that is on a national geographic scale or a more local or non geographic
> scale, I will think that is one of the appropriate ways for subsidiary
> democracy to work itself out.
> 
> Now back to sleep so I am ready for tomorrow's meeting - been sleeping on
> and off since i arrived in Bali 12 hours ago.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131019/20214f31/attachment.sig>