[bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism

[McTim]

Ian,

I like AD's answer below, but offer mine in line:


On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Is the audience at a football game multi-stakeholder?
>

Of course.  There are at least 2 groups.  the home team vs. the visitors.



>
> >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.
>


see my previous reply. a few minutes ago.

rgds,

McTim

>
>  *From:* Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> *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 IETF
>> being called "multi-stakeholder" unless the stakeholders' interests can
>> be delineated or at the very least distinguished.
>>
>> If "multi-stakeholder" !
>>  just
>> means "any person can participate", then why
>> use the prefix "multi-"?  Why not just call it "stakeholder-driven" or
>> "stakeholder-led"?  After all, if individuals are stakeholders (instead
>>
>> of interest groups being stakeholders), then the moment there is more
>> than a single individual taking part in a decision-making process, it
>> becomes "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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131130/e0a1c8ee/attachment.htm>