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

Sat Oct 25 18:10:48 EDT 2014

Which is much the same as a politician or bureaucrat representing an entire 
country.

A NGO working with a group of people or an email provider with millions of 
users may well have their users or stakeholder group's concerns and 
feedback in mind rather than mere political ideologies or business 
interests when they contribute.

On 25 October 2014 6:22:23 pm "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well first of all by definition “those who contribute” are “self-selected”… 
> they chose to contribute and were not selected by others such as 
> organizations, community groups, nation states or whoever to contribute on 
> their behalf…
>
>
>
> Demographically etc. they practically are an “elite” in that they are part 
> of that extremely small sub-set of possible contributors who have the 
> skills, knowledge, resources (including time/money) to contribute where 
> others who might have a concern or might be impacted do not have sufficient 
> skills, knowledge, resources etc. …
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:25 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen'; 
> michael gurstein
> Cc: 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
>
>
>
> How does 'those who contribute' equate to a self selected elite?
>
> On 24 October 2014 5:59:09 pm "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of 
> “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including 
> “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct 
> knowledge of the affairs under discussion).  This is quite different from 
> “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation 
> of resources, determination of benefits and so on. Including corporate 
> foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly 
> bad way of proceeding.
>
>
>
> The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a 
> Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to 
> self-selected elite “stakeholders”.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM
> To: David Allen
> Cc: 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
>
>
>
> Dear David Allen,
>
>
>
> It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for 
> different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 
> seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million 
> others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to 
> the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement 
> for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense 
> that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would 
> involve the rest of the people in day  to day debates and decisions by 
> using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the 
> multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, 
> after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder 
> model.
>
>
>
> There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be 
> advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions 
> to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the 
> multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are 
> experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied 
> expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either 
> unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve.
>
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
> +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen 
> <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make 
> choices.  Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, 
> of their representatives, in the first place ...
>
>
>
> But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a 
> place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ...   Hmmm ...
>
>
>
> In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the 
> ballot box.  And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 
> billion places at it?  And arrange to get everyone there?  So, since there 
> is no ballot box, they can speak?
>
>
>
> Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be 
> representing the poor folk'?  So ceding power to the powerful?
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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”
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141026/e6266382/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