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

Fri Oct 24 19:29:37 EEST 2014

Dear Michael Gurstein,

Throughout history, when any revolution, mild or bloody, replaced an
injustice, often it was by another (at inception or on deterioration).
Russian Revolution displaced Dr.Zhivago's and the French Revolution
guillotined a Sydney Carton or two. Communism and Socialism proved to
evolve to bring up its own classes of elites, Democracy captivated the
imagination of the common man for the past 2000 years, but little does the
common man realizes that he has no role in the rule, except for his vote to
elect the ones who rule.  One of the ills of Democracy is that of skewed
justice owing to the influence exercised by Interest of Lobby groups,
formal and informal, visible and invisible.

What is charming about Multistakeholderism is that it recognizes multiple
interests and that the interests are visible and seated around the table,
with a certain attempt to balance the interests of one another. This way,
Multi-stakeholderism addresses one of the unspoken ills of Democracy. And
in tiers, the whole world participates ( for e.g a tier on top with
Participants in a Working Group, another tier of subscribers to a mailing
list and yet another tier of Public Comments in the Public Comment + News
or wider Blog space.

I am not actually rejecting Democracy, but of the opinion that the
inevitable gaps in Democracy could be effectively filled by the
MultiStakeholder model, which could be viewed as,  - forgive me for the pun
- Enhanced Democracy ?

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

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> <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> 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
> <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 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/20141024/5ebd36a1/attachment.html>