<html><head></head><body dir="ltr">Your ad Absurdum is right in at least one thing, the multi-stakeholder effort has to be in the service of something the stakeholder can have an effect on. But in some extended sense, perhaps yes, though trivially, given the power of fans to affect games.<br>
<br>
<br>
Not all multistakeholder efforts are important. And not all follow cooperative models for getting to problem solutions. In understanding this I try not to conflate the definition of the terms with the other aspects of the model. That is why I believe that the IETF can be described as a multistakeholder implementation of a cooperative participatory model in action. <br>
<br>
I am fine agreeing to disagree.<br>
<br>
Avri Doria<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<div>Is the audience at a football game multi-stakeholder?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">>I see it as multi stakeholder because
these are people who have a stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes
and outputs, who come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring
the concerns of >those groups into the tussle</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">if it has no form the concept is fairly
meaningless IMHO.</font></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<div style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a title="avri@acm.org" href="mailto:avri@acm.org">Avri Doria</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:49 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal
Stakeholderism</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">Hi,<br /><br />I
see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a stake, a
material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who come from all of
the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the concerns of those groups into
the tussle. And while all participants need to understand technology, or at
least some aspects, they do not need to be technologists or even particularly
technical community oriented - they can be, human rights activists fighting for
privacy in the language of technology, or they can be intellectual propertyists
working for property in the language of technology. Many stakeholders from many
stakeholder groups.<br /><br />The IETF isn't formed like groups such as the NCSG or
bestbits or the ICC who act from a single stakeholder group perspective and
require membership in a particular stakeholder group (however they define that)
for membership. NCSG is a stakeholder group, though it does devolve into
subgroups, but everyone must be non-commercial. There are no such requirements
in the IETF, any one from any group is included. I think it is a
multistakeholder group, just of a slight different kind.<br />Avri Doria<br /><br />
<div class="gmail_quote">Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org> wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><pre class="k9mail">Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #729fcf 1px solid">Hi,<br /><br />I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder as all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they please or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may conceive of these groups. <br /><br />I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate the mandatory structure of all Ig groups. I do not even agree that any specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an organization, as long as any stakeholder can participate.</blockquote><br />Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead to IETF<br />being called "multi-stakeholder" unl!
ess the
stakeholders' interests can<br />be delineated or at the very least distinguished.<br /><br />If "multi-stakeholder" !
just
means "any person can participate", then why<br />use the prefix "multi-"? Why not just call it "stakeholder-driven" or<br />"stakeholder-led"? After all, if individuals are stakeholders (instead<br />of interest groups being stakeholders), then the moment there is more<br />than a single individual taking part in a decision-making process, it<br />becomes "multi-stakeholder".<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #729fcf 1px solid">I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism. </blockquote><br />Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of governance",<br />then?<br /></pre></blockquote></div>
<p>
</p><hr />
____________________________________________________________<br />You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<br />
bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.<br />To unsubscribe or change your settings,
visit:<br />
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></body></html>