<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><base href="x-msg://27/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><span style="font-size: 14px;">On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span></div><span style="font-size: 14px;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-size: 14px;">Very good start John but could I add a comment…</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just my offhand </div><div>thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this topic. </div><div><br></div><div>I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical community</div><div>have some significant common ground in terms of belief in multi-stakeholder </div><div>principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common definition (if </div><div>that is achievable.)</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-size: 14px;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-size: 14px;"> </span><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; ">I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to describe a process there is an implicit assumption of trustworthiness of the various parties. That is, there seems to be a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties -- no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only specific accountability is what they are presenting through their contribution to the MS process itself.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><chuckle></div><div><br></div><div>I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an agenda; it may or may be </div><div>"hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, but presumably there is </div><div>still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make progress, yes? </div><div>For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a meeting, I've pretty much got to </div><div>carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these may be 'hidden' to anyone</div><div>who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the Montevideo Statement on Future of</div><div>Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply lack of understanding of common</div><div>goals that might already exist.</div><div><br></div><div>The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective goal or common purpose, that </div><div>should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place, particularly if the time is taken to</div><div>find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which reduces the possibility of</div><div>working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-size: 14px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; that</span><span style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">various of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's terms below, be "</span><span style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) as "stakeholders".</span></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which is not a situation of unknown</div><div>motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or subterfuge by a participant); my only </div><div>advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting views and positions so that </div><div>such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time.</div><div><br></div><div>For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services offered by ARIN are set by</div><div>proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the greater Internet community </div><div>but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP address policy, which we believe </div><div>should be open to all and whose processes should subject to widespread accountability/oversight</div><div>to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a discussion with civil society for me </div><div>to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference that ARIN is wonderful and completely </div><div>guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be shown to be disingenuous given </div><div>existing documentation and other public statements showing that we strongly feel that our members </div><div>(who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that we offer and fees that we charge.</div><div>My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that getting participants to speak up </div><div>and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over time) provide some protection </div><div>against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a suggestion on this; I'm afraid that</div><div>defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous intentionally bad actors may </div><div>not be readily achievable.</div><div><br></div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at your own risk. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>