[governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism

Wed Apr 29 05:15:35 EDT 2015

Hi Jeremy,

I think Barry did a very good job at addressing the major flaws (and toxicity) of MS-blahism, debating your piece. Thanks to all for this.

One question to you though about your last sentence:
"But IMHO multi-stakeholderism and direct democracy are not that far apart
conceptually; the main difference is that the latter is more difficult
to realise in practice and is more vulnerable to majoritarian tyranny"

>From a democratic stand point, the majority is an essential principle. So how can you envision such a majority being a tyranny?
What are you exactly referring to? Are you saying that MSism, having the tyranny of a minority is still better than having to deal with a more difficult to handle tyranny of the majority. In any case, this takes us far away from the fundamental acceptance of democracy (and its majority principle).

No need to say that IMHO multi-stakeholderism and democracy (as direct, participative or distributive can it be) are in total opposition and distance when it comes to public policy decision making. As a methodology for consultancy, I have little to oppose to the idea of gathering in the same room different stakeholders. I don't think of anyone being against this idea. But again, we have to put things in the right context of 'use'. And be clear about the principles. This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.

Thanks
JC

Le 28 avr. 2015 à 23:15, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :

> On 27/04/2015 7:11 pm, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> And national governments: If we accept the theory that those
>> governments honestly and accurately express the values and interests
>> of their citizens, then why do we do need any other participants than
>> governments?  The answer is obvious: We have learned that governments,
>> just like corporations, tend to be driven by small opaque groups and
>> express the short-term interests of those groups.
> 
> Few other multi-stakeholder skeptics will buy this, because
> representative democracy is the one thing that they most want to
> preserve in future Internet governance arrangements.  Your ideals of
> direct democracy holding back corporations and governments are seen as
> even more utopian than multi-stakeholder ideals.  But IMHO
> multi-stakeholderism and direct democracy are not that far apart
> conceptually; the main difference is that the latter is more difficult
> to realise in practice and is more vulnerable to majoritarian tyranny.
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
> 
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150429/2fb4daa7/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