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

[michael gurstein]

Interesting, I'm curious as to how you would operationalize this.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:06 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:43 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:


> The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable

or is the issue WHO are the decision makers?  What if everyone were allowed to be a decision maker?



—in a
> Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to 
> self-selected elite “stakeholders”.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of 
> Sivasubramanian M
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM
> To: David Allen
> Cc: 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
>
>
>
> 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. 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.
>
>
>
> 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. 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
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits