[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

Sivasubramanian M 6.Internet at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 13:35:16 UTC 2018

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:36 AM <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:

> On July 16, 2018 at 01:48 6.Internet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >     Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel.
>  >
>  >
>  > ( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this
> anology,
>  > it merely requires a simple, very simple fix:  Reserve a third of the
> hotel by
>  > unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it,
> and to
>  > anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier
>  > stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance.
> I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some
> hypothetical implementation.
> The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they
> are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected
> by the various policy development processes.
> Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy
> themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the
> meetings.
> Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that
> three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of
> participation beyond open mikes.
> But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel.
> It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as
> system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*.

​That comes from Democracy to the multi-stakeholder process. The
multi-stakeholder process, by its direct participation design, by its
attention to stakeholder balance, is supposed to remove the lobbyist and
place the stakeholder, together with other stakeholders who claim contrary
interests. The balance would arise from bringing everyone around the table.
If lobbyists are around, find a way to send them away.

> In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly
> elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big
> registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the
> stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval.
> Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that.
> * That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for
> multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or
> so ago.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618
>     Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto,
>     J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in
>     multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become
>     legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a
>     democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence
>     that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder
>     situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who
>     would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil
>     society)

​He calls experts and civil society as lobbyists?  Civil Society is Civil
Society. If Powerful interests place their people in Civil Society seats,
and they act as invisible lobbyists by distorting the Civil Society
process, then Civil Society in its entirety is not to be blamed. On the
contrary, attention is required to this contamination so as to strengthen
the Civil Society.  Experts become lobbyists, when they the process of
selection gets distorted so as to bring in amenable or unjust 'experts' so
as to advance preordained positions in the pretense of neutral opinion, but
actually towards a pre-ordained position and to recommend predetermined
outcomes. There are good, impartial experts, but wherever the governance
process remains captured, the impartial experts are kept out of choice. ​

> become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all
>     public elections and not only write the laws but pass them,
>     enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration
>     that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the
>     court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum
>     requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force
>     inflicted by the wealthy and powerful.

> Multistakeholderism is a
>     coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be
>     lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March
>     2014}}

​Not meant to be so. ​

Sivasubramanian M

> --
>         -Barry Shein
> Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Sivasubramanian M
Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20180716/19efc7d1/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list