[bestbits] [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Sat Nov 1 03:02:36 EDT 2014

On 24 Oct 2014, at 11:08 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course these models of governance are aspirations—goals, directions towards which we strive, but which equally have the effect of strongly conditioning our current decisions and directions—which is why this discussion is not theoretical but extremely practical.

	Well, I for one find that JNC positions, which are effectively critical of all current models to some extent, where more directed to practical positive outcomes. 

> Is the direction towards which we strive in the area of global (Internet) governance one that maximizes democracy (rule by and for the people) or one that maximizes multi-stakeholderism (rule by and for the elite who have “stakes”)?  Simple question.

	Disingenous question, as you are sbsolutely aware that many on this list would regard your characterisation of multi-stakeholderism as wildly misleading. And, for that matter, many would regard JNC positions as frequently, while rhetorically applauding democracy, as in practical terms leading in the opposite direction. 

> Siva went on to suggest that MSism is the next stage beyond democracy an even stronger position

	In some respects, it may be, considering what you regard it as evolving from. If you regard democracy as being strict majoritarianism in all things then MSism surely stands in opposition to that, but that is an incredibly naive position on democracy held by practically no one. 

> – that is that rule by and for the people has now somehow become obsolete in the face of the overwhelming ascendance of certain private corporations, certain elite groups, certain countries and their allies.

	The view of multi-stakeholder processes you have is one that I feel can only be maintained by dedicated non-engagement. 

> Civil Society of course has traditionally (classically) supported democracy and the broadest base of participation in the structures and operations of governance.

	Indeed. And it should continue to do so. This is not, however, necessarily in opposition to multi-stakeholderism, especially in transnational fora in which democratic mechanisms do not practically exist. 

> But in the absence of a denial of these propositions rejecting Democracy presented by Siva and others it would appear that that too has become obsolete.

	Siva simply said he didn't feel that discussing this particular issue at this point in time, which would require first a thorough debunking of your constant urge to mis-characterise both multi-stakeholderism and democracy, is not a high priority. 

	Your efforts to construe a desire not to engage as meaning what you want it to mean are an empty rhetorical position that proves nothing. Please stop.

	Regards

		David
>  
> M
>  
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]  
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:52 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Gene Kimmelman'; michael gurstein
> Cc: 'Sivasubramanian M'; forum at justnetcoalition.org; 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'
> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>  
> Why isn't a multi stakeholder process any less broad or inclusive than say a multi lateral government only model, or a Parliamentary model in which a few elected representatives (whom you may not even have voted for), or a bureaucrat employed by the government elected by a country, determines policy that affects you?
> 
> True participatory democracy, going by the letter of that wiki definition, appears to be found in the cantons of Switzerland I guess, or on a smaller scale, in a local club where every member has a voice and a stake on where to hold their annual event, for example.
> 
> On 24 October 2014 10:33:45 am "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> No, I don’t think so, Gene. 
>  
> Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite central importance going forward.
>  
> I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by their silence indicate consent.
>  
> M
>  
> From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP
> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>  
> I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to discuss in person at some future meeting.
>  
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent.
>  
> M
>  
> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM
> To: 'Sivasubramanian M'
> Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org
> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>  
> Thanks for this Sivasubramanian…
>  
> Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism?
>  
> M
>  
> From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>  
> Dear Michael Gurstein,
>  
> The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined.
>  
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014
>  
> 
>  
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia
>  
> Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos andkratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. …
> 
> Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.
> It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”.
> But maybe I’m missing something.
> M
>  
>  
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>  
>  
> On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote:
>  If you take a look at my
> blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my
> argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in
> competition with democratic governance.
> 
> 
> I haven't read your blog.  But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme.  I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy.
> 
> I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition.  So the frames of reference are really quite different.
> 
> avri
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp
> 
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/7c93dccd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/7c93dccd/attachment.sig>