[governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism

Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 16:28:39 EDT 2015


You really must stop making things up that suit your argument but that have
no basis in reality.  

As one of those whom you refer to in your MS "Jeremiad" I would like you to
point to a passage in any of my writing on MSism where the following is
either stated directly or even inferred--"representative democracy is the
one thing that they most want to preserve in future Internet governance

My own, oft stated position is that there is a crisis in democratic
processes and we need to find alternative and very likely technology enabled
ways of proceeding for effective and efficient democratic governance.
However, we would be extremely  ill-advised to take this crisis as
justification for substituting governance by the elite few as through MSism
for governance by the many as through democracy.


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
Sent: April 29, 2015 1:09 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:15:42 -0700
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> 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.

Who are those multi-stakeholder skeptics in regard to whom you claim that
"representative democracy is the one thing that they most want to preserve
in future Internet governance arrangements"?

co-convenor, Just Net Coalition

-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:

For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list