[governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland"

[parminder]

On Thursday 21 March 2013 10:54 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:39 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> McTim et al you (T/A) can't have it both ways...
> why not?
>
> I see no issue with the T&A FP choosing from a subset of the T&A
> community, in that the subset would have a clue about EC and UN
> processes.

No, the focal point did not define it as a sub set of the tech-acad 
community, it defined it as 'the' tech-acad community. BTW, since this 
in a way is the case in point, Michael does know a thing or two about EC 
and UN processes. And thus your home made theory doesnt justify his 
exclusion.

>
> That's exactly what the CS FP did, no?
>
>> ...one definition for purposes of exclusion and political representation and
>> a second for inclusion and broader PR purposes--the results of the first
>> definition being so ghastly and repulsive in their significance.
>>
>> Remember this discussion is about the legitimacy of the current MS
>> processes
>
> I repeat, the CSTD is NOT a MS process.
>
> , not about the nature of technical and academic
>> activities/self-definitions in the real world, at which point I, of course,
>> agree with you.
>>
>> The point of the blogpost, to reiterate, was not to critique MS processes as
>> they might be useful in fairly narrow technical spheres, rather it was to
>> point out the extreme dangers in attempting to uncritically and
>> unreflectively apply these to larger and more "political" processes of
>> negotiation/decision making/even consultation. In these, the lack of
>> appropriate procedures and necessary mechanisms of transparency and
>> accountability
>
> If you find that "appropriate procedures and necessary mechanisms of
> transparency and
> accountability" are lacking, then blame the UN CSTD, not the FPs.
>
>
> , and the use of self-serving self-definitions can be very
>> damaging since what is being presented as one thing (e.g. representation of
>> a significant grouping such as the technical and academic community (or for
>> that matter Civil Society) is in fact something quite
>> different--representation by a very small self-covenanted highly
>> exclusionary group).
> Aren't all FPs choosing from a "very small self-covenanted highly
> exclusionary group" of activists ?
>


-------------- 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