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

[John Curran]

On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:52 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Agreed.  I believe that it is best to refer to "multistakeholder mechanisms"
or "multistakeholder processes"... such that would equally suitable to having
open and inclusive dialogues about any topic (e.g. climate change), while we 
just happen to use these multistakeholder mechanisms for the coordination of 
critical Internet identifiers.

In the ideal world, we'd have a clear and generally accepted definition for
what constituted valid "multistakeholder mechanisms"; an objective definition 
which would readily allow distinction of true multistakeholder processes from 
otherwise nominal attempts to appear similar (attempts generally based on 
ad-hoc solicitation of input without actual transparency of process or due
consideration of the input received...) 

> 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.

I think we agree, but I might reverse the causal aspects of the statement 
for clarity:  We commit to use multistakeholder mechanisms for coordination 
of technical aspects of the Internet, and do not presume their universal 
applicability in all matters Internet... i.e. sometimes the discussion of
public policy matters as applied to the Internet may be facilitated via 
multistakeholder mechanisms (as we see with IGF), but that doesn't presume 
all such dialogues of Internet public policy must be done via multistakeholder
mechanisms.  

Is the above comparable in meaning, or was your original intent lost in the
rephrasing?

> 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.

I have no view on this assertion, but stand by to assist as needed if there
improvements that CS wishes to undertake, and for which myself (or ARIN) can 
be service.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN