<html><head></head><body>Hi,<br>
<br>
I don't know about how many government types use their government email l. Not sure i understand why that matters. We see bunches using other addresses in IGF space, so I am nor sure it is a clear indicator. In any case I will see if there are any stats.<br>
<br>
I certainly know of many academics, some not network scientists who participate. I any case they are academia. And one can often see the tussle between doing something the academic way and the patented way. <br>
<br>
I know of privacy experts working for NGOs who participate and even lead. In the privacy week bein done one sees that policy has been brought in by experts in a technically clear and immediate manner.<br>
<br>
It is true one has to achieve a degree of understanding and an ability to speak intelligently, but I find that to be just as true in policy spaces.<br>
<br>
In any case I accept that there its a difference of opinion on the degree of multi stakeholder participation in the IETF. I will see if I can dig up any statistics. I just wanted to contribute another perspective.<br>
<br>
Avri Doria<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">Thanks, Avri. I'm still not sure if I agree.<br /><br />I think you're being over-generous when you say they do not have to be<br />"technical community oriented". Of course, folks can participate and<br />send mails, but good wishes of the sort "improve security by mandating<br />encryption in HTTP2" don't take you far unless you understand HSTS,<br />opportunistic encryption, SASL, role of CAs, cert-pinning, TLS, SSL,<br />layered encryption, the role of proxies, what all compliance with<br />HTTP1.1 implies wrt port 443 vs. port 80 traffic, and a host of other<br />things which sometimes even technologists who aren't networking<br />specialists don't get. Very often the person gets booed down for being<br />impractical, and told that it's not politics that counts but 'technical<br />merit'. (I'm not saying that there is anything *wrong* in this, I'm<br />merely noting that this is so.)<br /><br />So, realistically, there aren't many outside of
technologists (either<br />volunteers, or paid by corporations) who contribute to standards-setting<br />bodies like IETF. When people contribute not representing interests,<br />but as individuals, how does the idea of differential 'stakeholder'<br />interests even arise? (Unless of course you think not of "the technical<br />community", but "web server coders vs. DNS providers vs. equipment<br />manufacturers vs. browser coders" as different stakeholder groups.[1]<br />If that is so, then even Best Bits has multiple stakeholder groups:<br />libertarian developing world groups, progressive developing world<br />groups, free speech groups, development-oriented groups, etc.<br /><br />Just out of curiosity, do you know any government officials outside of<br />the US who contribute to IETF from their official work addresses, the<br />way technologists from industry do?<br /><br />~ Pranesh<br /><br />[1]: If industry is a separate stakeholder from technical community,<br />t!
hen
perhaps there is scope to argue that there are two stakeholders<br />there. Where does Mozilla, for instance, fit in? It's a non-profit,<br />its budget coming largely from Google. Is it "civil society",<br />"technical community", "industry", or all/none of the above?<br /><br />Avri Doria [2013-11-30 12:49]:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi,<br /><br />I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a<br />stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who<br />come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the<br />concerns of those groups into the tussle. And while all participants<br />need to understand technology, or at least some aspects, they do not<br />need to be technologists or even particularly technical community<br />oriented - they can be, human rights activists fighting for privacy<br />in the language of technol!
ogy, or
they can be intellectual<br />propertyists working for property in the language of technology.<br />Many stakeholders from many stakeholder groups.<br /><br />The IETF isn't formed like groups such as the NCSG or bestbits or the<br />ICC who act from a single stakeholder group perspective and require<br />membership in a particular stakeholder group (however they define<br />that) for membership. NCSG is a stakeholder group, though it does<br />devolve into subgroups, but everyone must be non-commercial. There<br />are no such requirements in the IETF, any one from any group is<br />included. I think it is a multistakeholder group, just of a slight<br />different kind. Avri Doria<br /><br />Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-l!
eft: 1px
solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi,<br /><br />I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder<br />as<br /></blockquote>all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they<br />please or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may<br />conceive of these groups.<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;">I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard<br /></blockquote>stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate<br />the mandatory structure of all Ig groups. I do not even agree that<br />any specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an<br />organization, as long as any stakeholder can participate.<br /><br />Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead<br />to IETF being called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders'<br />interests can be delineated or at the very least distinguishe!
d.<br
/><br />If "multi-stakeholder" just means "any person can participate",<br />then why use the prefix "multi-"? Why not just call it<br />"stakeholder-driven" or "stakeholder-led"? After all, if<br />individuals are stakeholders (instead of interest groups being<br />stakeholders), then the moment there is more than a single<br />individual taking part in a decision-making process, it becomes<br />"multi-stakeholder".<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;">I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of<br /></blockquote>governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism.<br /><br />Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of <br />governance", then?<br /><br />-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society <br />T: +91 80 40926283 | W: <a href="http://cis-india.org">http://cis-india.org</a> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 |<br />Twitter:
@pranesh_prakash -------------------- Access to Knowledge<br />Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314<br />7147 | W: <a href="http://yaleisp.org">http://yaleisp.org</a></blockquote><br /><br /></blockquote>-- <br />Pranesh Prakash<br />Policy Director<br />Centre for Internet and Society<br />T: +91 80 40926283 | W: <a href="http://cis-india.org">http://cis-india.org</a><br />PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash<br />--------------------<br />Access to Knowledge Fellow<br />Information Society Project, Yale Law School<br />T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: <a href="http://yaleisp.org">http://yaleisp.org</a><br /><br /></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>