[governance] Discourse on doubts and concerns about multistakeholderism (was Re: Public interest and multi-stakeholder...)

[Norbert Bollow]

On Thu, 21 May 2015 02:58:14 -0400
Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> May I make a suggestion?
> 
> Perhaps a dedicated list where those interested in the definitions of
> these key terms which have caused so much strife could be created,
> and those interested in that discussion could pursue it there; this
> list could refer all such discussions to the ‘other place’.
> 
> That would give everyone what they want, it seems to me.

The real problem is not in disagreements about definitions, nor in the
fact that wordsmithing good definitions is difficult.

In my view, the key for really improving the situation would be to
address the sociodynamics which George Sadowsky has referred to by
stating that "in some quarters", doubters of multistakeholderism are
"shunned and excluded". The other side of this coin is that those of us
who are making the experience of getting shunned and excluded in some
quarters, are of course objecting to that process of exclusion, and
looking for opportunities to express our concerns.

IGC's current structures are IMO quite clearly inadequate to this
situation, in the sense that it is IMO not realistic to expect the
needed substantive discourse to take place in a constructive manner
here on this list.

Neither am I aware of any other suitable, currently existing venues for
this.

IMO the only way to really advance beyond unproductive and repetitive
patterns of interactions between proponents and critics of
multistakeholderism is for someone to set up a venue of discourse with
the specific goal of facilitating a constructive discourse on the main
points of disagreement between these two viewpoints.

The objectives of such a discourse should IMO be to figure out:

1. whether there are any fundamental points of disagreement on which a
broadly acceptable consensus is impossible to reach, and if so,
precisely understand what precisely the disagreements and respective
opinions and interests are

2. what are broadly acceptable principles, which will, if/when
they are adopted, solve those aspects on which there is no fundamental
disagreement

Greetings,
Norbert


> > On 21 May 2015, at 02:42, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 20 May 2015 13:20:43 -0400
> > George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In some quarters, multi-stakeholderism has almost become a
> >> religion, to be accepted on faith, with doubters shunned and
> >> excluded.  IMO this is counterproductive both to understanding the
> >> possibilities of multi-stakeholderism and to employing when it is
> >> the right model to use.
> > 
> > Well-said. I wholeheartedly agree.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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