[governance] Principles
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Tue Oct 23 21:30:34 EDT 2012
I see your point, but unless it is a citizen government like the cantons of switzerland where every man and his dog gets to vote on whether the village square needs a new public toilet or not, what you suggest still doesn't ensure true participation when scaled to the levels we're both talking about (large country elections, international multistakeholder processes etc).
Like, you have a bunch of people who passionately believe in, say, making the cat the national animal of the USA. Even if they do go out and vote to throw out the bums who insist that having the bald eagle as the national bird is quite enough, thank you, the size of their stake is naturally self limiting unless they go out there and canvass [which then ultimately boils down to the "how many", "how much" type questions below]
--srs (iPad)
On 24-Oct-2012, at 6:52, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> even in the multistakeholder process, the size of your stake depends a lot on
>>
>> 1. how many conferences in exotic locations you are willing to fly to
>> 2. how many experts in tech, policy, law etc you can afford to hire
>> 3. how much are you willing to commit out of what you have to a particular igov process rather than any of a multitude of other multistakeholder processes within and outside of igov
>>
>> so, again, what is the difference, in practice?
>
> The difference is this: The wealthy have disproportionate lobbying power in a democracy, but when it comes down to voting, everyone has an equal vote, no matter how rich or how poor. Democracy passes the "So What?" test by giving the people the ability to kick the bums out if they thumb their nose at the people and say "so what!" to the complaints and concerns of the people.
>
> In contrast, in MS systems, the wealthy lobbyists' interests ARE the officials holding power, perhaps with a token citizen lobbyist or two from civil society. Nobody has a vote except these business and citizen lobbyists, only these political pros have a vote, the people can never kick these bums out no matter how corrupt or ineffectual they may be, and participation hinges basically entirely on wealth in the form of time and/or money invested, with the absolute minimum barrier to entry being hundreds of hours of time and worldwide travel capability for the token civil society representatives. MS systems can say "so what!" to the people with relative impunity.
>
> It matters not at all that some MS officials claim to be, OR ARE, simply providing neutral objective advice or expertise. Such folks strongly wish to add that input and it is still their personal stake in the process as they have freely defined it. Again, the issue as to whether there is democracy or not is not so much the qualities of the MS officials as lobbyists-now-brought-to-power (and so they don't "lobby" in quite the same way any more, being the holders of power). The issue is all the people that don't even have the MINIMUM of a vote, regardless of how badly they may want it. Because of that, the average person takes a huge step back.
>
> Under MS, there's nothing the people can really do if they don't like what the aristocrats and oligarchs decide, except to pray that they are philosopher kings. Under MS, the aristocratic lobbyists, whether corporate or citizen lobbyists, have effectively eliminated the targets of their lobbying - elected officials - and assumed power themselves to the exclusion of the voices of all other people.
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 24-Oct-2012, at 6:30, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> Even in a democracy, people who exercise their franchise, go out and vote have a bigger say in things than people who sit in a bar and grumble about how Obama is taking away their jobs and turning america into a communist hellhole.
>>>>
>>>> People who actually participate in community level all the way to national politics have an even bigger say than those who do vote.
>>>>
>>>> Would you say that is an oligarchic process rather than a democratic one?
>>>
>>> Not at all, because as you say yourself, everyone has the chance to "participate in the community level all the way to national politics." It's still a democracy and not an oligarchy if people have the right to vote, but choose not to. Similarly, the same is true for this participation you refer to.
>>>
>>>> Just like in the political process, the size of your stake depends on the level of effort and resources you are willing to commit. And unlike the political process you don't need a war chest of millions to participate in a multistakeholder environment.
>>>
>>> This translates to: The size of your stake (VOTE) depends on the level effort and resources you are willing to commit. I.e. it depends on your wealth, which wealth frees up both the time and the resources to participate. Do I need to restate that basing one's vote and therefore one's ULTIMATE say being magnified or diminished by one's wealth or business interest in the area is offensive to one person one vote democracy?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You do need to commit time and people, and build capacity within your organization, if you expect to have any sort of a meaningful stake. Rather than, say, demand a stake just because "every citizen of the world is a stakeholder in the Internet governance process.
>>>
>>> Anybody can amass time and people to do the lobbying effort of whatever size, from zero to millions, that they wish. And that's what you are describing here, regardless of whether we are talking about citizen lobbyists from the grassroots or the more common and more powerful corporate lobbyists.
>>>
>>> Multistakeholder process puts the lobbyists completely in charge!
>>>
>>> And MS disfranchises all voters except the lobbyists, mostly corporate and some token civil society lobbyists.
>>>
>>> The fact that the various stakeholders electing themselves to power in MS systems have millions of dollars or hours invested, together with some expertise, is really quite irrelevant when it comes to democracy.
>>>
>>> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24-Oct-2012, at 5:42, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> M
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:24 AM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vanda UOL
>>>>> Cc: Karl Auerbach
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Principles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When aristocrats or oligarchs get together, certain procedural things within the ruling junta can be quite "democratic", very much like Multi-stakeholderism can have internal procedures amongst the ruling junta that appear quite fair-minded. These internal procedures, though they may seem democratic, don't make aristocracy or oligarchy democratic at all. It just means these rulers act like equals and are civil to each other, perhaps even willing to listen once in a while to the masses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether something is democratic or aristocratic/oligarchic is measured not WITHIN the organization, but by reference to those whose voice is not recognized (via representatives) in the form of a vote in the matters at hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Multistakeholderism is not democracy, and it is misleading at best to use the term "democratic" to describe procedures within Multistakeholderism. Until every voter has the right to exercise their vote to "kick the bums out" (their own representative) it's not democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> > I rather take a rather different position, which is that stakeholderism
>>>>> > is oligarchy and not democratic at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Vanda UOL <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Very interesting Karl, we need take care with the private monopoly where nothing that people can do to change things will be heard. Countries facing loss of power are, deeper and deeper trying to get something to at least keep their own status quo, no new in this side. What needs to be new is the way the governance in several aspects of Internet. I am not seeing good news in this side.
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> -----Mensagem original-----
>>>>> De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Karl Auerbach
>>>>> Enviada em: terça-feira, 2 de outubro de 2012 18:25
>>>>> Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> Assunto: Re: [governance] Principles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/01/2012 03:10 PM, Koven Ronald wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > ... posited on the notion that the Internet has revoked the 2,500
>>>>> > previous years of political philosophy and history.
>>>>>
>>>>> More like about 370 years - since the Treaty of Westphalia.
>>>>>
>>>>> The truth is that that world of geograhic-bounded nation-states *is* eroding; the edges of nation-states are getting fuzzy, especially since
>>>>> 1945 with the rise of nation-agile multinational corporations and since the mid 1990's with the rise of the internet and world wide web.
>>>>>
>>>>> The granules of power that are eroding from the edges of nation-states are not disappearing, they are flowing into the hands of either private actors or bodies of internet governance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those granules represent plenary, often non-reviewable, authority over matters affecting the internet and its users.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I was on the Board of Directors of ICANN I had fun tweeking the nose of a US Senator when I informed him of the indisputable fact that I, in conjunction with about 10 other Directors, could pass a rule over internet use of trademarks and names that would supersede and trump anything that he, as a mere United States Senator, could enact.
>>>>>
>>>>> He got angry - much in the way we see the fear and anger of nation states bubbling over in attempts to re-assert and re-insert national governments into these new bodies of governance.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are building internet governance on models that are more from the era of flower-power and high-hopes rather than on the 18th century models that recognize the aggregation of unchecked power and try to constrain that aggregation, models that form the basis of many national constitutions of today.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have forgotten history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Several of us have proposed various models of internet governance - and these models have all emphasized small, extremely limited, and clearly separated bodies, with extremely limited, if any, discretionary powers, each wrapped around exactly one highly and clearly defined internet governance issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> That model of concise, tightly shrink-wrapped, and almost clerical bodies of governance would help eliminate the opportunity for a body to dance among the issues to leverage one issue against another to the tune played by whatever group of stakeholders has captured that body. We saw that happen with ICANN when it staved off insolvency some years ago by making an implicit pact with the address registries so that ICANN could have the cash to to survive and assert its role over domain names.
>>>>>
>>>>> --karl--
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
>>>>> P.O. Box 1
>>>>> Ishpeming, MI 49849
>>>>> lehto.paul at gmail.com
>>>>> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
>>> P.O. Box 1
>>> Ishpeming, MI 49849
>>> lehto.paul at gmail.com
>>> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI 49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121024/2983f421/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list