<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Open membership criteria = stakeholders from any sector - government, industry, civil society, academia are able to gain membership .. possibly subject to criteria such as accepting a code of conduct and/or possible vetting to ensure that their previous track record does match the code of conduct (which would generally be best practice).</div><div><br></div><div>Equal participation - everybody has speaking and, where relevant, voting rights. There are of course committee / working group chairs possible even in such a setup, and voting may be based on rough consensus, but chairs would necessarily have some additional rights [but that is an elected post so ..]<br><br>These are simplistic and I am sure some nuances can be found to tilt such organizations either way, from open all the way to rigidly closed.</div><div><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 16-May-2013, at 12:48, Andrea Glorioso <<a href="mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Can you define "open membership criteria" and refine the notion of "equal participation rights", i.e. everyone has the same speaking rights? Everyone has the same decision-making rights?<br><br>On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <<a href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net">suresh@hserus.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> A membership organization with open membership criteria and equal participation rights is definitely multistakeholder.<br>> --srs (iPad)<br>> On 16-May-2013, at 9:48, Andrea Glorioso <<a href="mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>> Dear Avri,<br>><br>> On May 15, 2013 10:25 PM, "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@ella.com">avri@ella.com</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>><br>>> On 15 May 2013, at 16:33, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
>><br>>> > This is the problem with the inviolability of the W3C as one of the supposedly multi-stakeholder Internet [technical] community organisations,<br>>><br>>><br>>> i do not know if i already asked this on this list or elsewhere, but isn't W3C a membership organization.<br>
>> If so, in what ways is it multistakeholder?<br>><br>> Perhaps I misunderstood your question, but isn't a membership organisation which allows multiple stakeholders to become members, a multi-stakeholder organisation?<br>
><br>> Ciao,<br>><br>> Andrea<br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>><br>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>><br>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br><br>-- <br><br>--<br>I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.<br>Twitter: @andreaglorioso<br>Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso</a><br>
LinkedIn: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro</a><br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>