[governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism

[Barry Shein]

(I'll top-post)

It's a complex problem. In a democratic or representative democracy we
can trace authority back to individuals. Plus or minus foundational
limitations such as constitutions, power of courts, and of course just
inefficiencies we can't completely explain -- who voted for parking
meters???

This doesn't preclude the existence of Chambers of Commerce and
similar which only or primarily enfranchise incorporated entities.

I suppose the question is whether we are trying to establish something
more like a government, or something more like a Chamber of Commerce?

Put another way is internet MSism a means for legitimization or just
an advisory body for those entities which have legitimization?

Somewhat in echo of your points the wikipedia page on
"Multistakeholder governance model" has a criticism section which
states this "governance of, by, and for the lobbyists" fear
succinctly.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_governance_model

  -b

On May 3, 2015 at 11:56 karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) wrote:
 > 
 > On 4/29/15 10:23 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
 > > Ok, let's try this then:
 > >
 > > Is EFF a stakeholder?
 > No.   No thing that exists merely as an abstraction of law or accounting 
 > ought to be given power in the making of decisions.
 > 
 > EFF employs many human people who would all be proper holders of a 
 > franchise to participate in the making of whatever decision is to be 
 > made.  Each of whom would be free to follow the EFF position or not.
 > 
 > EFF as an organization would, of course, be able to provide its 
 > expertise - as would any other organization from the NRA to the ITU to 
 > Boeing to Joe's Bar and Grill - but it would merely be proffered advice 
 > and would have no weight in the making of decisions beyond its power to 
 > persuade those (individual humans) or a human who has been designated by 
 > those people to act on their behalf, in other words a designated 
 > representative.
 > 
 > I am amused by how easy it is to corrupt stakeholder systems.  Under 
 > ICANN's rubric I have many hats in which I am a "stakeholder" and get to 
 > put my replicated thumb multiple times onto the scale of decision.  I 
 > am, of course, a user of the internet, I own and control several 
 > for-profit corporate entities, I participate in several non-profit 
 > organizations, I hold domain names and IP addresses from before the era 
 > of ICANN and the RIRs, I've authored full internet standards, I own 
 > several trademarks and many copyrights and even some patents, I'm a 
 > citizen of more than one country, and I am also an attorney (both 
 > California and US Federal).
 > 
 > So under a system of stakeholders I get more places to stand and try to 
 > project my influence than the average internet user.   That, of course, 
 > doesn't mean that I get my way - I tend to espouse rather liberal 
 > human-over-corporation values - which clearly face huge mountains of 
 > opposition.  But there are others who are far more capable and 
 > manipulative than I am, and have far more resources, money, and time.  
 > Consider the trademark protection lobby - they are quite well funded, 
 > well focused, and under the ICANN system they get, and use, multiple 
 > "stakeholder" seats (as intellectual property interests, as business 
 > interests, via their exaggerated influence in governments, and via the 
 > "at large").
 > 
 > When one recognizes mental abstractions - such as the collection known 
 > as EFF or the collection known as Verizon - to have the piece of the 
 > power to make decisions then that reduces the power of humans.  It's a 
 > zero-sum game - the more we give to legal fictions, such as corporations 
 > or trade groups, then the less there is for individual people.
 > 
 > I am reminded of some of the mud that was thrown at the ICANN elections 
 > in year 2000: that some countries and large corporations were trying to 
 > influence their employees to vote in certain ways, and that as a 
 > consequence it was asserted that those elections were tainted.  Yet 
 > under the stakeholder system those same countries and corporations would 
 > get actual power, actual votes - why care about the opinions of mere 
 > people when the CEO can decide what is good for them?
 > 
 >              --karl--
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ____________________________________________________________
 > 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

-------------- 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