Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society

[michael gurstein]

Fair question John and I should  say that I did notice a rather more nuanced
approach to the discussion of MSism at least by some in Bali.

I think one way to start is by not referring to MSism without some sort of
qualification as for example limiting it to areas concerning consultation,
discussion or process and not having it refer to "governance" per se.

A second way to proceed is to delimit applying MSism (e.g. as in having
those directly involved in the outcome of the decisions having a role in
making the decisions) to those areas having to do with the governance or
management of various of the technical aspects of the Internet and not the
more traditional areas of public policy e.g. taxation, various human rights
elements, costing etc.

A third way is to recognize that to all intents and purposes CS in its
current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and
accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The
implications of taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism
is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant
efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective
and legitimate partner.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:21 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: bestbits; Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits]
DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society

On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:22 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> (It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and 
> celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for 
> Internet Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the 
> Internet age) needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost.

Michael - 
 
 It has been nearly a month since that blogpost - 

>>   "Can we in fact proceed or accept the outcome of any MS process without
a very close re-examination and structuring of those processes; that is, to
develop a means for providing appropriate safeguards against contamination,
subversion, distortion or interest capture by or on behalf of one or another
of the significant players ...

 My question is: "Have you now conducted such a reexamination, and/or have
you developed any means for providing appropriate safeguards against
contamination, subversion, distortion or interest capture?"

 I stand by willing and able to help, but as I noted in my reply, I am  not
aware of any magic solution to this problem, and can only suggest  that
'having all parties speak up and "go on record" with their beliefs  and
assumptions might (over time) provide some protection against actual  bad
actors in the process.'

 If you have come up with any better mechanisms for multi-stakeholder
participation (ones that avoid some of the risks noted above), it would
very be helpful if you could share your insights.  Until then, we are  left
to muddle along with the mechanisms and practices that are presently  in
place.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN