Workshop 1 - who's on board already (was Re: [governance] Call for Consensus...)

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

This did get copied to the list - but well, it is as good an answer as we're likely to get, and much more relevant to the mandate of this list than some other emails.

So, no harm, no foul - and thanks for your thoughts.

--srs (iPad)

On 20-Mar-2013, at 17:29, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
>> Do we have consensus within the IGC on what constitutes ms'ism, just
>> to start with?
> 
> Good question. I'll avoid the risk of potentially making a fool of
> myself by avoiding to answer it in public. :-)
> 
> Privately: - I think that we don't understand multistakeholderism any
> better yet than most people understand time. What I know is that most
> people (including everyone who hasn't studied modern physics, including
> in particular general relativity and modern conceptions of cosmology,
> and the arguments against what is known as the "cosmic censorship
> hypothesis") have wrong conceptions about what time is, and after
> having spent a good deal of time on that kind of stuff, I'm not sure
> that my understanding is that much better. :-)
> 
> Nevertheless, the naive conception of time is good enough for most
> practical purposes, and I think that the various existing conceptions
> of multistakeholderism are also good in that it's possible to have a
> worthwhile conversation on accountability and transparency in regard to
> "multistakeholder selection processes" with a focus on the kind of
> situations that come up with the UN CSTD WG kind of multistakeholderism.
> 
> The kind of approach used in what I sometimes call "the real
> world" (meaning IETF etc.), where everyone interested can join and
> those who don't have what it takes to understand what's going on will
> generally leave on their own accord before too long, and get ignored
> otherwise, is IMO much better, but effectively interfacing that kind of
> model with governments is still an unsolved problem I think. So maybe
> there is no real alternative to accepting some kind of "representative
> multistakeholderism" for that interface? If so, we need accountability
> and transparency in regard to the processes that select those
> representatives.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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