[bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism

[Pranesh Prakash]

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?

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
--------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow
Information Society Project, Yale Law School
T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/c82c8f8e/attachment.sig>