[bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism

[Ian Peter]

Is the audience at a football game multi-stakeholder?

>I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the concerns of >those groups into the tussle

if it has no form the concept is fairly meaningless IMHO.

From: Avri Doria 
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:49 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism

Hi,

I see it as multi stakeholder because these are people who have a stake, a material or other concern with the outcomes and outputs, who come from all of the defined stakeholder groups, and who bring the concerns of those groups into the tussle. And while all participants need to understand technology, or at least some aspects, they do not need to be technologists or even particularly technical community oriented - they can be, human rights activists fighting for privacy in the language of technology, or they can be intellectual propertyists working for property in the language of technology. Many stakeholders from many stakeholder groups.

The IETF isn't formed like groups such as the NCSG or bestbits or the ICC who act from a single stakeholder group perspective and require membership in a particular stakeholder group (however they define that) for membership. NCSG is a stakeholder group, though it does devolve into subgroups, but everyone must be non-commercial. There are no such requirements in the IETF, any one from any group is included. I think it is a multistakeholder group, just of a slight different kind.
Avri Doria


Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote: 
Avri Doria [2013-11-30 11:07]:Hi,I would argue that the IETF is most definitely multi stakeholder as all stakeholders may/can/do participate and can caucus as they please or not as their stakeholder groups, however they may conceive of these groups. I do not know where the requirement originated for the standard stakeholder groups defined unilaterally by governments to dictate the mandatory structure of all Ig groups.  I do not even agree that any specific stakeholder group needs to participate in an organization, as long as any stakeholder can participate.Even if one were to agree with this, I don't see how it can lead to IETFbeing called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders' interests canbe delineated or at the very least distinguished.If "multi-stakeholder" !
 just
means "any person can participate", then whyuse the prefix "multi-"?  Why not just call it "stakeholder-driven" or"stakeholder-led"?  After all, if individuals are stakeholders (insteadof interest groups being stakeholders), then the moment there is morethan a single individual taking part in a decision-making process, itbecomes "multi-stakeholder".I tend to look for multi stakeholder participation forms of governance. I do not argue for multi-stakeholdergroupism. Why not just talk about "stakeholder participation forms of governance",then?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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/20131201/961f2535/attachment.htm>