<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>This was put forward as basis to specify the mission:</div><div><br></div><div>On Mar 22, 2013, at 3:39 AM</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">...<br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); 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-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">the lack of clear principles on methodology</span></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">...</blockquote></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); 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-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><br></span></div><div>Method is always important - but the discussion has been about purpose. Before method.</div><div><br></div><div>For a reason. A folksy saying reminds: "If we don't know where we are going, any road will take us there ..."</div><div><br></div><div>First, we establish purpose. Only after purpose is clear, then method may figure out how we get to that objective. Otherwise, ...</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The second blogpost goes straight to the question of purpose.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/">http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/</a></div><div><br></div><div>The question, in a nutshell, to define purpose: What role may MS possibly have in a democracy?</div><div><br></div><div>Certainly not MS as a replacement - not, as for instance, the stance of the US exiting WCIT, in Kramer's sign-off.</div><div><br></div><div>MS, not as the policy-making mechanism.</div><div><br></div><div>Rather - perhaps - as a means toward greater engagement, within a democracy, as that second blogpost discusses.</div><div><br></div><div>Policy is set by, and reserved to, democratic means.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>With, then, perhaps some clarity on purpose for MS - method can become the topic.</div><div><br></div><div>______</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The eventual discussion of method, premature now, found fodder - nonetheless - in the below:</div><div><br></div><div>So, let's say it again:</div><div><br></div><div>“… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than 3-400 people in the entire world …"</div><div><br></div><div>Sizes of the stakeholder groups are most starkly lopsided. Their constituencies, T/A compared with the other three. Different by a number of orders of magnitude. T/A is in the thousands. CS / business / governments are in the hundreds of millions, billions.</div><div><br></div><div>Starting with the facts is the first step.</div><div><br></div><div>Then, after the stark lopsidedness, representation. How would these three, or four, tribes represent each of their groups? Who will?</div><div><br></div><div>The standard: Hard-won democratic governance has developed strenuous procedures for elections. In cases - for an example - where a society has yet to learn / adopt suitable procedures, international observers arrive and oversee election processes. To insure fair representation.</div><div><br></div><div>Then, to suppose representation via a club of 'usual suspects,' perhaps three or four times a few dozen - a hundred or so in total - points at some of the worst of tribal outcomes. Clubby, elitist control of power, where mutual back-scratching proscribes serious critical analysis. Where interests served become private and individual, not the public interest. Such has been, across history, the path to some of the most despised outcomes.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:56 PM:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the usual suspects from each of these communities, and that makes it a few dozen each.<br><br><br>On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Hi David,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Allen<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><<a href="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu">David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The T/A definition from its focal point:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"... scientists who developed the Internet and the technical<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">organizations/people who run it."<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Which is the starting point for doing the counting.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ok, but realistically, I would bet that the pool of acceptable<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">candidates would be closer to 30-40.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I would say that this applies to CS and biz SGs as well.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If we were to do an analysis of who has "represented" the 3 non-gov<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">SGs over the last decade in these UN fora I would be surprised if it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">were more than 30-40 from each SG.</blockquote></div></blockquote></div></body></html>