<div dir="ltr">Dear All,<div>Responding to Ian's reminder, and to the discussion generally - what is a stake? who holds one? how/why do they hold it?</div><div>Somewhere about 2004 (possibly earlier) it looks as if stakeholder and shareholder became confused (my conjecture, possibly through a shareholder being described as having a stake in a company?) Prior to that, stakeholder seems to have been seen "officially" as the neutral third party without a personal interest who holds the stakes or wagers until the matter of the bet is resolved. The term now seems to have flipped completely to mean someone with an interest of some type in the issue at hand. Perhaps the contradictory flip from "without personal interest" to "with personal interest" helps explain some of the difficulties with the term?</div>
<div>So is a stake an interest?</div><div>Is the holder a person or a group of people?</div><div>I was discussing the second question last month with someone from this region (LAC) and he suggested the following answer -</div>
<div>"<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.44444465637207px">Also from a practical standpoint, a group viewpoint would tend to carry more weight than an individual one so it would behove like-minded individuals to organise themselves in representing their views (e.g. individuals into civil society groups or even groups into lobbies). In addition, I also have the sense of multistakeholder as implying a group of stakeholders of equal status. To my mind, this would work best if the substantive stakeholders are either groups or individuals, but not both together."</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><font color="#000000">This is my response to that issue:</font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"There is an inherent inequality about this which is always overlooked. Corporations and organisations already have an existence. They are held together by existing structures. However the end users are an amorphous lot (as well as being the clear majority, all 3 billion of them) To require them to organise themselves so that they have the right to speak puts them at an extreme disadvantage, particularly considering the diversity of their opinions. An "innovative" thing about the Internet ... is that essentially it functions at the level of the individual. Perhaps we need to learn to use it at the level of the individual too. It's amazing how much prominence, within organisations, is given to physical meetings. The recent ICANN meeting in London was attended by about 3000 people: the constituency of the internet end user is 3 billion, a billion times bigger."</span><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.44444465637207px"><br>
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">If we can reach some sort of agreement on who or what a stakeholder is, then I think it will become easier to find consensus on multistakeholder process, or multistakeholderism.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Sorry for the long message</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Deirdre</span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On 27 July 2014 16:22, Ian Peter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div>Trying to go back to the original discussion -</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hear all the reasons why we can’t avoid discussing equal footing. But the
beginning here was the idea of a consensual statement on multistakeholderism – I
think we should work on that, with as good a reference to equal footing as we
can agree on at this stage, rather than divert to trying to develop a common
position on what equal footing means.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Because I think we can get somewhere on a multistakeholderism statement.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ian</div>
<div style="font-size:small;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;font-weight:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;display:inline">
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="background:rgb(245,245,245)">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="kichango@gmail.com" href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">Mawaki Chango</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 28, 2014 4:58 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">Internet Governance</a> ; <a title="dogwallah@gmail.com" href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com" target="_blank">McTim</a> </div>
<div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance]
Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition
process</div></div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="font-size:small;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;font-weight:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;display:inline">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> </div><div><div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">
<div>McTim,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
from, the ITU/WSIS breed.</div>
<div>First of all, I'd contend that the constituency-based approach at ICANN was
and still is an instance of MSism. Don't take my word for it; as soon as the
WSIS process made the term 'multistakeholder' fashionable, we've heard it a lot
reclaimed in ICANN's ranks. So much so that they have now re-devised their old
constituency groupings into stakeholder groupings. However, as far as I know,
ICANN only dealt with its direct stakeholders as organization, that is, the
domain name industry, the technical community (security and stability aspects of
the net), and the business, particularly via the lenses of IPR issues. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, I'm aware of the very early failed attempt at direct voting by end
users for their reps on the board of directors, but after that it took many
years for the Noncommercial user constituency to be recognized (only as part of
the GNSO community) and for ICANN itself to get the ALAC structures going.
(Please feel free to correct me or complete if I'm missing any major aspect of
things here; I'm just summarizing on the flight.) At the end of the day,
constituencies and stakeholders at ICANN have also had to be divided into
separate groupings with an identity label -- and so it was before WSIS
started.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Was that then a perfect instance of MSism which ITU-WSIS came to spoil? I
just once to have this clarified once for all as to what you exactly mean
everything you point to ITU as having put the worm in the fruit (or whatever
colloquialism I'm missing to remember correctly here) by delineating stakeholder
groups as it did during the WSIS process. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Beyond that, I'd also appreciate if you can give references or pointers to
any clear formulations (e.g, RFC or excerpt of charter, of rules and operating
procedures of relevant groups, or other informal text that may have served for
guidance in implementing MSism, etc.) of instances of MSism you deem successful
or which should be taken as reference (such as any version of "<span style="font-size:12px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">MSism that built and
developed the </span><span style="font-size:12px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Internet for the last 3+
decades.") My apologies if that has been done before, as I suspect it could
have.</span></div></span></span></span></span></div></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Thanks and
cheers,</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Mawaki</span></div><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM, McTim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com" target="_blank">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">All,<br>
<div><br><br>On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br>> On Sun, 27 Jul
2014 07:44:26 -0700<br>> "michael gurstein" <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>><br>>> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens",
sounds pretty good<br>>> in theory, in practice not so good (for the
hens... exceptionally<br>>> good for the foxes...<br>><br>> Equal
footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to<br>>
escape?<br>><br>> SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)<br>><br>> On a
more serious note, how should the following be classified?<br>><br>>
During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document,
the<br>> UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears
to<br>> the proposal to include a reference to the civil society
WSIS<br>> declaration alongside the governmental one.<br><br><br></div>We
have to keep in mind that the "MS" IG processes which emanate from<br>Geneva
are not the same sort of MSism that built and developed the<br>Internet for
the last 3+ decades. Those are the models we should be<br>using, NOT the
ones that come from Geneva.<br><span><font color="#888888"><br><br><br><br>--<br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates
what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>route indicates how we
get there." Jon
Postel<br><br></font></span><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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>
<div> </div></div></div></div></div>
<p>
</p><hr><div>
____________________________________________________________<br>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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></div><p></p></div></div></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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></div>