<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi all - since Parminder and I are facilitating this opening session
and the definitions discussion, I think it would be useful to
collate some of these ideas, with your permission :-)<br>
If others have ideas or suggestions they would like to share
beforehand, please do so, I have started a pirate pad for this
purpose:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ">http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ</a><br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
<br>
Joy Liddicoat<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/10/2013 8:01 a.m., John Curran
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F9C7DFF9-A912-4DE6-9463-ECBFA53AED1D@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<base href="x-msg://27/">
<div>
<div><span style="font-size: 14px;">On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25
AM, michael gurstein <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 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; " lang="EN-US">
<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 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; " lang="EN-US">
<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 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; " lang="EN-US">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>