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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Comparing a working stake in a process to a rubber stamp oligarchy form of 
government is so wrong that I can't quite react any further to this, but 
anyway..



On 24 October 2014 3:14:08 pm "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jeremy,
>
>
>
> As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via 
> these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each 
> time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I 
> am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important 
> matters.  And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we 
> see the right time and place to do so.”
>
>
>
> And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but 
> surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you 
> and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be 
> appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have 
> been a “right time and place” to give that definition!
>
>
>
> And it’s not as though this is an inconsequential issue—it involves 
> replacing Democracy as the aspirational model of governance that has been 
> in place for several thousand years and has captured the loyalty, passion 
> and aspirations of millions of people worldwide—take a look at what is 
> happening right today in Hong Kong--with a will-o’-the-wisp undefined gleam 
> in someone’s eye whose provenance seems to be the corporate elite dominated 
> World Economic Forum and whose major cheerleaders appear to be the 
> completely public interest seeking US State Department.
>
>
>
> As for my definition of MSism as governance by a self-selected elite, it is 
> based on my experience and analysis as extensively documented in my blog 
> (and as confirmed by several of the contributors to this thread).  I’ll be 
> pleased to be persuaded otherwise as to this definition but simply 
> rejecting it without argument is equally trivial.
>
>
>
> BTW, I’m still waiting for any of the distinguished IG CS leaders to 
> publicly avow or disavow themselves of either Siva’s notion that MSism is 
> an evolutionary “replacement?” for democracy or Suresh’s definition of 
> “stakeholder” as consisting of those with a “stake” i.e. those who have 
> actively contributed to the object of the governance process—as defined of 
> course by the beneficiaries of these processes.  (This it might not be 
> noted and not incidentally is directly parallel to the argument currently 
> being made against democratic governance in Hong Kong by C.J. Leung on 
> behalf of the ruling cadres of the PRC).
>
>
>
> Silence, even by those who insist on being silent in their silence, is a 
> very telling and significant statement in a context such as this one. What 
> it says is that we can’t or don’t need to give a definition—we can proceed 
> without one because we have power, wealth and influence on our side—no one 
> can make us, or stop us and ultimately it doesn’t matter what you or anyone 
> think or do—MSism is, as the Queen of Hearts said, whatever we choose it to 
> mean and if you don’t like it well…
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 9:35 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 
> hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>
>
>
> On 24/10/2014 8:43 am, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
> > Why not try continuing the discussion, but temporarily banning the use
>
> > of the word "multistakeholderism" and all of its related terms? This
>
> > would involve more words, more typing, more time reading, but would
>
> > save time in the long run because each contributor to the discussion
>
> > would be forced to describe exactly what he/she is talking about, and
>
> > the discussion itself would be clarified.
>
> > (Other possible candidates for the temporary ban are democracy and
>
> > liberalism/ neo-liberalism)
>
>
>
> If Michael will stop inaccurately appending "(governance by self-selected 
> elites)" after every mention of multi-stakeholderism, then I'll stop saying 
> "so-called democracy (statism)". ;-)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm
>
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
>  <https://eff.org> https://eff.org
>
>  <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
>
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
>
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141024/08c6f178/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