[bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism

Tue Dec 3 13:57:42 EST 2013

Well, to be more precise, especially re. the last sentence in my previous
message: I am not saying that this model of
participation/standard-setting/policy-making is a bad one. In fact as a
model (meaning an abstract construction) it is as good as they come when
dealing with matters that require some minimum knowledge in
specific/specialized fields (which political democracy doesn't require
although I and many others think democracy works best when all citizens
have a bit of education and are well informed.) And in that case, the fact
that there is no room for arguments of authority but that ideas win on
merit is to be appreciated and even lauded.

However, let's also remain aware that as a concrete mechanism, it is only
that good if every participant starts from a leveled playing field, same as
for any other of his or her counterpart, in terms of their ability to be
prepared to the same degree without such preparation incurring higher costs
for some as compared to others. The reality is significantly different.
Even for those of us who can navigate through our first working language
and English, we still spend a lot more time to muster or to parse the
concepts and contents of a substantive document, or to write such a
document. That can cumulatively have a serious cost on how much you can do,
with your day counting 24 hours like anyone else's. So celebrating the
model without a recognition whatsoever of that kind of burden and
limitation could make some of us cringe somewhat.

p.s. I've been getting two different threads from this conversation, so it
shouldn't come as a surprise if the content of some messages prior seems
not to be taken into account in some later messages. I eventually read
about JFC's post re. working in non-WG in multiple languages at the IETF. I
applaud that and would suggest such efforts need to continue and amplify to
become mainstream in the work of all I* organizations (not just translating
outputs or offering interpretation during meetings, but making sure all
existing working materials are available in as many languages as possible
so that people can read them and offer their contributions in the language
they feel more comfortable in.)

Best,

Mawaki

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> But in all these discussions, do we even factor in the fact that English
> is not a language everybody (not matter how bright) can speak, understand
> and work in? How many billion people on this earth are in that category?
> How many governments around the world have English as, if not their
> official, at least one of their working languages? You already have that
> which filters out so many people, before even subtracting more on the basis
> of technical literacy. Where does that leave us/ this idealized model?
>
> Maybe we should have a universal course called "Internet Infrastructure"
> or something like that, to be taught in all curricula around the world in
> both English and the local education language? Something like a basic
> literacy thing that will be taught at all levels with increasing complexity
> along levels of education -- a bit like we all did math until the end of
> high school? Only then, I can give some credence to the BS
> "multi-equal"-whatever meme, graciously accepting the fact that some of us
> will still have to work in two languages to be equal.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:
>
>> Avri Doria [2013-11-30 15:22]:
>> > I don't know about how many government types use their government
>> > email l. Not sure i understand why that matters. We see bunches using
>> > other addresses in IGF space, so I am nor sure it is a clear
>> > indicator. In any case I will see if there are any stats.
>>
>> I guess one other way to look at it would be to ask:
>>   * Has any government official ever co-authored an RFC?
>>   * Has any government official (especially non-US) ever participated in
>> IETF discussions in an official capacity?
>>
>> McTim [2013-11-30 18:19]:
>> > It's a great example.  Can you name other settings in Internet policy
>> that
>> > has folks operating as equals without being divided by silos?  Where
>> > government folks and CS and people who run telco networks all have the
>> same
>> > status?
>>
>> Who are these "government folks" that are being talked about?  Sure,
>> they're "free" to come join the discussion, but unless they are actually
>> part of the discussions, it makes little sense to talk of them having
>> the "same status".[1]  Formal equality vs. actual equality.
>>
>> Please note, I'm not making an argument that IETF should change and try
>> and get government participation.  I'm just saying that governments
>> haven't participated in IETF.
>>
>>   [1]: On the moon ants and antelopes have the same status.
>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director
>> Centre for Internet and Society
>> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
>> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
>> --------------------
>> Access to Knowledge Fellow
>> Information Society Project, Yale Law School
>> T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131203/f69aea09/attachment.htm>