[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

[Karl Auerbach]

I tend to feel rather uncomfortable with your formulation because it 
doesn't seem to include people.

For example, your formulation excludes me.

As you know, I do not believe that any aggregation - whether we call it 
a corporation, a government, a "stakeholder", an NGO, or "civil society" 
- ought not to have automatic recognition as being anything more than a 
convenient means for people to aggregate their individual opinions and 
views.

It is always useful to hear the opinions expressed via these aggregates. 
  And it is true that many, perhaps most, people will chose (usually 
through inaction) to let some aggregate express an opinion on their behalf.

But when it comes down making choices and measuring "consensus" (or some 
other more concrete measure), in other words when it comes to counting 
noses, we ought to count real noses on real people and not some 
hypothetical and arbitrary notion that these aggregations actually speak 
with authority.

I see further risk in that this kind of creation of a "multi-stakeholder 
system" will ossify very quickly into a kind of internet caste system.

Do we really want the governance of the internet to resemble a medieval 
feudal society in which people have rank and authority based on what 
groups they are in?

		--karl--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance