Multi-Equal Stakeholderism (was Re: [bestbits] Joint civil society endorsements for London meeting of High-Level Panel)

[McTim]

Jeremy,


On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 30 Nov 2013, at 9:31 pm, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also, if someone could guide me to a space where I can find out more about
>> "multi-equal-stakeholderism" and its origins, I'd be grateful - first time
>> I hear about this.
>>
>
> This is a very good question.  I don't know much about non-Internet-y
> multi-equal-ness, but I think the purest form of multi-equal stakeholderism
> in IG can be found in some of the RIR PDPs and the IETF processes.
>
>
> It's an odd choice of example
>


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?




> , since many would say the IETF is not multi-stakeholder all,
>

I've never met anyone who has ever said that.  Are you actually trying to
make that claim?



> since it does not recognise stakeholder groups.
>


Stakeholder groupings are artificial boundaries imposed on us at WSIS by
government types.

It is NOT the way Internet policy has been made during the first 3 decades
of Internet existence.



>   Where multi-equal stakeholderism is usually used specifically in
> reference to organisations that do recognise stakeholder groups, to
> indicate that they should be equal to one another in process terms.
>


I refuse to limit the use of that term to fora which use artificial
boundaries between people.


 This distinguishes it from forms of multi-stakeholderism like at the OECD
> and purportedly at the ITU, that don't recognise equality between the
> stakeholders.  So it's an attempt to refine the term multi-stakeholderism.
>  I have to say, I don't really like the term though.
>

I really like it, it describes the IG processes I am most active in quite
well.

Last week, in Abidjan for instance, there were several hundred folks from
Africa and elsewhere getting together to work on resource policies for the
African region.  Here is the list of those participants.

http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/en/meeting/participants   slect "all"
then "apply" to see entire list.

A you can see there are folks from ALL Stakeholder groupings that WSIS
divided us into, but we do not recognise those boundaries.  We discuss
policies and ideas as equals.  So a government Minister is equal to a
router jockey.  Ideas win on merit.  Policies decided by consensus.  We all
put forth what we think is in the best interests of the Internet in Africa.

I think it is the "shining city on the hill" of Internet governance.  I
think all IG should be done that way, in a "multi-equal" manner.

rgds,

McTim




>
>  --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the
> global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/fde92886/attachment.htm>