[governance] In Multistakeholderism, those who would be Lobbyists become Legislators, & nobody else has a vote

Mon Oct 29 11:42:10 EDT 2012

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Lehto
>
> ****
>
> Even more stunning is Milton Mueller's comment that business support ALONE
> (or business with civil society) would constitute "popular support" for a
> given proposal.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> **Ø  **I have no idea what you are talking about, and I frankly doubt
> anyone else does, either. Try providing an exact quote.
>

Milton, I quoted your own language about 3 days ago, and you replied back
then without greatly modifying your comments.  Please read carefully the
exact quote already provided for you three days ago, and the first
paragraph of my response back then, which was at the top of my email that
day:

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Paul
>
> “popular support” does not mean one person, or even two people.
>
> I mean a widespread mobilization among *either civil society or business
> or both*, demanding greater UN involvement.
>

> [emphasis in bold added]
>

Paul Lehto reply to above, Fri Oct 26, 2012:  "I can't believe that you
would count a "widespread mobilization" *among business alone* (or business
and "civil society") as meeting the definition of "popular support."  From
the perspective of democracy (which counts only human beings as having a
vote, not businesses) your honesty here is almost mind-blowing.
-------------------

It is clear that on Friday October 26, 2012 Milton provided a definition of
"popular support" in order to explain the scope of things that would have
"no popular support" and thus are unworthy of passage or significant
consideration.  That definition of "popular support" clearly states that a
mobilization of business (alone) meets the definition of "popular support"
for Milton.

> ****
>
>
>
> **Ø  **You seem not to have noticed that none of the governmental
> officials involved in ICANN, GAC, etc are "democratically elected." They
> are at best political appointees (e.g., Strickling), and for the most part
> career bureaucrats (e.g., GAC reps). Parliamentarians are conspicuously
> absent.  [...]
>
I have not lost sight of this.  It has been discussed somewhat extensively
recently by me and others as the demotion of democratically elected
representatives to being just one of many different "stakeholders."
Clearly, I recognize that some of these officials are involved.  Though
many are appointees, the critical link for democratic legitimacy is that
the appointee be appointed by, and given operational standards by, someone
who is democratically elected/accountable.  This preserves a link of
control by the people.  Even if this link of control is sometimes tenuous
in practical terms, it nevertheless exists whereas other stakeholders are
completely unaccountable to the people and there is no mechanism for
recourse or recall or change of policy even if that policy has "no popular
support" and very much against the public interest.

****
>
> **Ø  **You also have lost sight of the fact that it is government
> officials who respond to (big) business lobbyists most strongly. This is
> evident to those of us who actually attend and participate in international
> institutions. You will find that out, if you ever get some real experience
> to go along with your prolix writing.
>
I quite agree regarding too much business control but ironically you
recognize that as valid in your definition of "popular support" and amplify
it in support of MS governance systems that institutionalize such control.
If big business lobbyists are a problem corrupting democracy, why
institutionalize that control by giving business affirmative votes, making
lobbying interests into major voting interests (while still not prohibiting
them from lobbying other non-business "stakeholders"?

As far as "prolix writing" being my only experience, that's an ironic and
probably ad hominem attack coming from a professor such as you. I've worked
for a state senator in the legislature, a US Senator's field office, been
an elected lawmaker regarding court rules, and had over a dozen years of
business litigation experience prior to becoming more prolix and scholarly,
like many law professors.

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> * for Milton Mueller the only opinions that matter are those of business,
> *because without business support
>
> ** **
>
> **Ø  **A complete fabrication. You are hallucinating. Yes, in assessing
> popular support business (which is _*not*_ a uniform, homogeneous group)
> counts, but no one has ever said that those opinions are the only ones that
> matter.
>
I am correct in stating that business support alone meets your definition
of "popular support" since you stated on October 26 that by "popular
support" "I mean a widespread mobilization among *either civil society or
business or both"

Thus, business support alone constitutes "popular support" if it is
mobilized.

I overstated a more minor element of your case, and for this I apologize
and retract what I said.  I stated that civil society support, alone, could
not constitute "popular support" without business support.  On a closer
examination of your words, a "widespread mobilization" of civil society
might well meet your definition without business mobilization. That being
said, the most important part of what you said is that business
mobilization, with OR WITHOUT civil society, constitutes popular support.
And that is still quite stunning, as stated before.
*

> ** **
>
> Ø  And yes, if you have a coalition of civil society and business against
> the state, then you are much more likely to succeed politically. That is
> just a fact, borne out empirically in cases ranging from SOPA/PIPA to net
> neutrality to the encryption battles of the early 1990s.
>
This is true, for practical politics,  But we are talking here not of
chances of passing proposals, but of what in fact constitutes popular
support.  And you have stated that business support with or without civil
society support is popular support, i.e. the voice of the people, basically.

> ****
>
> **Ø  **Civil society and private business are not as dichotomous as you
> seem to  believe. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that
> something was supported by 60-80% of individuals and civil society
> organizations and OPPOSED by most businesses. To me, this would indeed
> constitute evidence of popular support.
>
Milton, you ask us to ASSUME 60 to 80% support of "individuals and civil
society" and opposition by "most businesses."  Because your example is
hypothetical, the facts are not in doubt, and so both the people
(individuals) and civil society both really do have supermajority support
of 60 to 80%, and on top of this even a few businesses support it as well,
even though "most businesses" oppose it.    Despite commanding
super-majority popular support, and despite the facts not being subject to
debate because you require us to assume them, you only declare clear
supermajority support by both the people and civil society to be "evidence"
of popular support.  It is far more than mere evidence, it IS popular
support.  Period.  You asked us to assume it, so there's no room to debate
that.

You posit a "widespread mobilization" at 60 to 80%, yet this is diminished
as mere "evidence" of popular support. Yet, in your original definition, a
widespread mobilization by business alone would be more than "evidence" of
popular support, it IS popular support.  There is still an elevation of
business in your popular support test, and a diminishment of individual and
civil society support.

> ****
>
> **Ø  **But to repeat, there is no evidence that CIRP has such support.
> And that is what we are discussing. ****
>
> **
>
But you would only accept as "evidence" of popular support something  like
60 to 80% support.  In the real world one can literally always argue
whether or not that standard is met because the facts are not assumed as in
the example you gave.  Thus, no proposal or group as a practical matter,
can ever meet the standard of popular support for you provided you are, as
with CIRP, inclined to look at it in a skeptical light.

While one of my statements characterizing your position went a bit too far
in terms of the implications of your original definition of "popular
support", the underlying point that democracy  is downgraded in MS
governance to one mere stakeholder among many, and that you Milton
personally further discount the weight of the people and civil society by
both your original definition as well as your subsequent clarifications
still applies.  I don't understand why you would do this, and not back off
when it's called out, if you share a great concern with the
disproportionate control by business lobbyists of many democratic
governance systems.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

> **
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121029/fec4c22d/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