[governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism

[Mawaki Chango]

Obviously, I meant in my previous post:

And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is
enfranchisable and *how do they get enfranchised?

/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
On May 1, 2015 8:41 AM, "Mawaki Chango" <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is
> enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who
> is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some "more
> equally" listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have
> clear answers to Barry's great questions, this remains a persistent
> challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more
> other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS
> setting turning into a club is palpable.
>
> On Apr 29, 2015 6:04 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> > Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to
> > some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent
> > approval process.
>
> Right! It has been my impression MS-ism tends to be skeptical about voting
> per se and tends to prefer consensus processes not formally based on a
> proper voting as known so far in demonstratic processes. One may understand
> why, although one may or may not agree. Such voting requires well defined
> boundaries ahead of time - the boundaries of the polity, of the
> enfranchised, so far all individuals notwithstanding the opinion of the
> current US Supreme Court - meaning those boundaries are closed at least at
> some point. Once those boundaries are defined and implemented, it is a 'one
> person one vote' business, which MS-ism does not find all that friendly.
>
> Or am I mistaken in my reading?
>
> /Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
>
> [1] Please set aside cases such as IETF. We are discussing broader
> policies which may impact potentially everyone and in which potentially
> anyone could be involved, not just processes whereby technical artifacts
> are designed or modified, issues requiring specialized knowledge which
> cannot be acquired in a day or two of preparation by any (basicly) literate
> individual.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150502/18b65eaa/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