[Mmwg] Combining models

[Milton Mueller]

> Model 1 allows you to take decisions; deliberating in model 2 is  
> extremely difficult and subject to capture. 

Vittorio's proposal has some merit but the underlying analysis is faulty. People always talk about the risk that an open group will be "captured." In fact, risk of capture is far greater with closed groups. Interest groups with power can define the admission and voting procedures in a way that reinforces their control. Defining admission and voting procedures can be used to lock in their advantage. That is capture. 

Open groups can be dominated (usually temporarily) by stacking the deck and other tricks, but rarely captured. To capture something you have to shut off participation by gaining control of admission and voting procedures. While I agree that domination by unrepresentative groups at an open meeting is a problem, I think that structural capture via model 1 is a much more serious problem.

> So I think that what we need is a mix of the two: model 2 to  
> develop policy proposals, and model 1 to approve them.

Again, not necessarily a bad idea, but here is a potential problem: A split model invites the general public to spend thousands of their dollars and many many hours of their time to develop a proposal in an open process, and then throws it up to a (captured?) closed structure which may have no incentive to reflect the interests, desires, or discussion of the open group. What recourse do the participants have? In what way is the closed group accountable to a broader public? 

If I were a power-monger who wanted to dominate the proceedings, I would invest all of my time and money getting people placed on the "model 1" structure and very little time on the model 2 process. So let's be careful with that.



Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org