<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.FootnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Very good start John but could I add a comment…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>various of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's terms below, be "</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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".<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That being the case what would/could an effective MS process look like?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Curran<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:25 AM<br><b>To:</b> Jeremy Malcolm<br><b>Cc:</b> bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";background:white'>The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the moment. Although the<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>agenda</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";background:white'> </span></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";background:white'>(particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone is using the<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with some <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it were to be defined<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>from the civil society perspective)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common purpose?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all interested parties?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide consideration of all inputs/views?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- Respect for all participants involved?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term "multi-stakeholder"<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, although the term<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid set of principles<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your present plans or goals for<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks!<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>/John<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via multi-stakeholder <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> processes (unless one credits various portions of my consciousness <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> with independent stakeholder status... ;-)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div id=ftn1><p class=MsoFootnoteText> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>