[bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

To whom is anybody at all in this caucus accountable for say wrecking 
attempts to achieve consensus?

And after you fasten accountability what would you then do to whoever is 
held accountable for whatever?

That the caucus itself works at all is because of the same forces that make 
a multistakeholder approach work



On November 4, 2014 5:35:37 AM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”.
>
>
>
> To whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to 
> whomever has paid for their participation?  Are their formal procedures for 
> accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one 
> group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about 
> the nature of the participation/representation of another group what 
> measures are available to challenge that participation and under what terms?
>
>
>
> Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”?
>
>
>
> How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to 
> would the entire process be accountable?
>
>
>
> Of course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer 
> each of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still 
> waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held 
> accountable.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 
> hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>
>
>
> It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts 
> participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a 
> working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected 
> representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to 
> class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early 
> in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion 
> that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough.
>
>
>
> The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its 
> intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES 
> extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation.
>
>
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory 
> Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or 
> broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this 
> by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”
>
>
>
> ​
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141104/339e768c/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