[IRPCoalition] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Fri Oct 24 18:08:47 EEST 2014

Of course these models of governance are aspirations—goals, directions towards which we strive, but which equally have the effect of strongly conditioning our current decisions and directions—which is why this discussion is not theoretical but extremely practical.

Is the direction towards which we strive in the area of global (Internet) governance one that maximizes democracy (rule by and for the people) or one that maximizes multi-stakeholderism (rule by and for the elite who have “stakes”)?  Simple question.

Siva went on to suggest that MSism is the next stage beyond democracy an even stronger position – that is that rule by and for the people has now somehow become obsolete in the face of the overwhelming ascendance of certain private corporations, certain elite groups, certain countries and their allies.

Civil Society of course has traditionally (classically) supported democracy and the broadest base of participation in the structures and operations of governance. But in the absence of a denial of these propositions rejecting Democracy presented by Siva and others it would appear that that too has become obsolete.

M

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]  
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:52 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Gene Kimmelman'; michael gurstein
Cc: 'Sivasubramanian M'; forum at justnetcoalition.org; 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Why isn't a multi stakeholder process any less broad or inclusive than say a multi lateral government only model, or a Parliamentary model in which a few elected representatives (whom you may not even have voted for), or a bureaucrat employed by the government elected by a country, determines policy that affects you? 

True participatory democracy, going by the letter of that wiki definition, appears to be found in the cantons of Switzerland I guess, or on a smaller scale, in a local club where every member has a voice and a stake on where to hold their annual event, for example. 

On 24 October 2014 10:33:45 am "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

No, I don’t think so, Gene.  

Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite central importance going forward.

I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by their silence indicate consent.

M

From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt> > IRP
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to discuss in person at some future meeting.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent.

M

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM
To: 'Sivasubramanian M'
Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Thanks for this Sivasubramanian…

Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism?

M

From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Dear Michael Gurstein,

The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined.

Sivasubramanian M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> 

+1 (213) 300 8293 <tel:%2B1%20%28213%29%20300%208293>  Oct 11-19 2014

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia

Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29>  of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>  (Greek demos <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos>  and kratos <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82> ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. …

Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.

It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”.

But maybe I’m missing something.

M

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote:

 If you take a look at my
blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my
argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in
competition with democratic governance.

I haven't read your blog.  But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme.  I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy.

I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition.  So the frames of reference are really quite different.

avri

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20141024/d6d08296/attachment.html>