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

Fri Oct 24 16:33:31 EDT 2014

On Oct 24, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear David Allen,
> 
> It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient.

So pleased that - in your almighty wisdom ...- you will decide what is 'sufficient.'  Oh, wait a minute, 70 million are listening - that is news.  Or, more to the point, a fantasy.

Really?  You want to assert such a thing in serious dialog?  Right now, as pivotal decisions are being made in Busan, we can have a test of the possibilities.  How many do you imagine are actually tuned in to the live stream? actual count?

> If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day  to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model.

Which, actually, we have been doing for the last few hundred years, in the modern history of democracy.  We just didn't think to give it a fancy name.  Nor, did we corrupt this - invaluable, for real democracy - involvement of the public, by then ceding power only to the powerful.  As MSist of the day today have done.

> 
> There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems.

That is most certainly true.  And you think the sorts of goings-on, on these lists, in IGF, etc, have solved those problems, any problems?

Ian Peter has just noted - using only _my_ words now - how much failure there has been, all around.  And, goodness knows, we do not need a perverted MS process that actually only empowers the powerful further.

> Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve.
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
> +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014

Careful of the CJ Leung approach, so far carefully avoided in conversation here.  Any real, decent governance starts with the disenfranchised - not the powerful.

Myself, I must note.  I will carry on conversation that is productive.  But that which is circular and so fails to advance understanding only obfuscates.  Of course, mileage may vary.

Best regards,  David

> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices.  Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ...
> 
> But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ...   Hmmm ...
> 
> In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box.  And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it?  And arrange to get everyone there?  So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak?
> 
> Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'?  So ceding power to the powerful?
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 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”
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141024/d4c8c600/attachment.htm>