[governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched)

[John Curran]

On Jan 18, 2014, at 7:56 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

>  So in this instance the burden of proof surely falls not on those who are demonstrating that the “multistakeholder model” doesn’t provide an appropriate approach to governance but rather on those who are attempting to assert that it does…

Actually, we're in agreement on that - i.e. the burden of proof should fall to those who are 
attempting to assert the validity of the model.   You're asserting that there could be a valid
representative multistakeholder selection process, but it somehow didn't happen in this 
case.

I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for everyone (who wishes)
to present their views on a given topic, have those views considered based on their merits,
and allow all to ponder and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged.

I fail to understand how an _representative_ multistakeholder approach fairly provides for the 
"represented" to have their positions considered in a manner that allows for all participating to 
revise their views based on the discussion that occurs, and if this does not occur than one may
argue that there isn't actual deliberative consideration going but simply a dance of posturing
and  negotiation.  If there is actually a some demonstrable validity to the _representative_
multistakeholder model, it would best to understand how it is supposed to function in ideal 
circumstances and then assess whether this particular instance of selection functioned in a
compatible manner.

You're asserting that this selection process lacks validity, but fail to provide any clear model
of how a representative multistakeholder approach is supposed to work.   I'm presuming that
the burden of "being represented" must lie with each party; i.e. regardless of the number or 
particular folks chosen, it is incumbent upon everyone to seek out representatives and educate 
them on your views and positions. Logically, it cannot be otherwise, or each & every party could 
simply disagree with representation and demand to be their own representative.   If it is supposed 
to work in some other manner involving objective criteria for how representation is chosen, then
I know I'd like to understand those criteria before trying to pass judgement on "validity" of any 
representative multistakeholder selection process.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140118/bbb6a6a3/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