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

[michael gurstein]

The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”. 

 

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? 

 

Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”?

 

How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to would the entire process be accountable?

 

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.

 

M

 

From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

 

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 ​​​are not representative enough. 

 

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. 




Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> 

 

 

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

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”

 

​

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141103/dc9079ad/attachment.htm>