<div dir="ltr">Do you think the problem might be in the words. I have an intense dislike of the term "level playing field" because it is completely blind to the state of the players - are they all wearing football boots, are they all properly fed? "Equal footing" expresses a similar situation - everyone has the same surface underneath their feet, but what about the feet themselves?<div>
Would it be possible to express what we want to say with a different metaphor, or even try to fit it into plain words?</div><div>Deirdre</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 27 July 2014 08:32, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><br>
<br>
On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:<br>
> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF will<br>
> never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. Anyways, so<br>
> much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>I tend to disagree. For me it is a critical phrase in the definition<br>
for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a few<br>
governments and misunderstood by many. It is such a simple term, with a<br>
simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using it. And I<br>
think that many different groups can be on an equal footing with each<br>
other at the same time. For example, we could have a global<br>
multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal<br>
footing. Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to<br>
discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk<br>
when they went off to talk among themselves. To my mind there is no<br>
dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant<br>
exchange without equal footing.<br>
<br>
I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on an<br>
equal footing the better. But the realist in me realizes that we aren't<br>
there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct democracy in<br>
my lifetime. That is why I indicate that in those cases, where the<br>
final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it "may be<br>
assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these decision makers<br>
<div class="">are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions<br>
</div>and the implementations." Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.<br>
<br>
The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we<br>
obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in<br>
various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to<br>
particular cases The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking<br>
about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy<br>
or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture design<br>
in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or the ITU on<br>
telephone numbers. The point is that as much as possible the discussion<br>
leading up to the actual decisions, including the recommendation of<br>
solutions, it should be multistakeholder. And in as many cases as<br>
possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.<br>
<br>
As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people<br>
neutral in that respect. I find it works well for me both in explaining<br>
things, in studying things and in modeling various real life scenarios<br>
and in tactical thinking for advocacy.<br>
<br>
Your mileage may vary.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
avri<br>
<br>
</font></span><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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
</div>