[bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?

[McTim]

Michael,



On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:47 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm still waiting
>

If you continue to use this hectoring badgering style of discourse, you may
be waiting for Godot!




> for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed system (democracy) but
> one where there is at least a track record, very considerable theoretical
> development, an enormous ecology concerning Transparency and Accountability
> with a pig in a poke (multistakeholderism) which has no (applicable) track
> record, absolutely no theoretical development or underpinnings, and whose
> only ecology is highly questionable since it suffers from, shall we say,
> significant transparency and accountability "deficits".
>


Obviously you haven't participated in any of the truly MS fora in which I
have engaged.  If you had, or had bothered to do some research, you would
find no lack of transparency or accountability.   I note that you are in
the ARIN region, why don't you noodle around that website to see what you
can find in regard to lack of transparency, etc.  I think you will be
hard-pressed to find any "deficits" therein.

Never one to shy from flame-bait, the most obvious rationale is that MS
processes have delivered
the current Internet, which most of us think is a pretty useful thing.


>
>
> The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with
> existing processes by various highly questionable actors--tax dodging
> private sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted)
> tech community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not
> only this but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over
> ("consensus based") public policy outputs to those self-same private sector
> giants etc. etc.
>


The above makes zero sense.  I thought you felt that the status quo was
fine for lots of folks who you dislike, now you are saying they are
impatient with existing processes?


>
>
> If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending time
> thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic
> processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic
> participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment
> would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other
> reasons for discarding democracy which we aren't being made aware of.
>


Some of us see MSism as deepening democracy, but you can't accept the
sincerity of others positions on this.  Instead, you fire random, vague
accusations of corruption.



>  (That the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes
> MSism 12 times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various
> of those party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)
>


Maybe those who wrote it feel that MSism IS a form of democracy.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140306/d8325342/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