[bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism

[Pranesh Prakash]

Thanks, Avri.  I'm still not sure if I agree.

I think you're being over-generous when you say they do not have to be
"technical community oriented".  Of course, folks can participate and
send mails, but good wishes of the sort "improve security by mandating
encryption in HTTP2" don't take you far unless you understand HSTS,
opportunistic encryption, SASL, role of CAs, cert-pinning, TLS, SSL,
layered encryption, the role of proxies, what all compliance with
HTTP1.1 implies wrt port 443 vs. port 80 traffic, and a host of other
things which sometimes even technologists who aren't networking
specialists don't get.  Very often the person gets booed down for being
impractical, and told that it's not politics that counts but 'technical
merit'.  (I'm not saying that there is anything *wrong* in this, I'm
merely noting that this is so.)

So, realistically, there aren't many outside of technologists (either
volunteers, or paid by corporations) who contribute to standards-setting
bodies like IETF.  When people contribute not representing interests,
but as individuals, how does the idea of differential 'stakeholder'
interests even arise?  (Unless of course you think not of "the technical
community", but "web server coders vs. DNS providers vs. equipment
manufacturers vs. browser coders" as different stakeholder groups.[1]
If that is so, then even Best Bits has multiple stakeholder groups:
libertarian developing world groups, progressive developing world
groups, free speech groups, development-oriented groups, etc.

Just out of curiosity, do you know any government officials outside of
the US who contribute to IETF from their official work addresses, the
way technologists from industry do?

~ Pranesh

 [1]: If industry is a separate stakeholder from technical community,
then perhaps there is scope to argue that there are two stakeholders
there.  Where does Mozilla, for instance, fit in?  It's a non-profit,
its budget coming largely from Google.  Is it "civil society",
"technical community", "industry", or all/none of the above?

Avri Doria [2013-11-30 12:49]:
> 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?
>> 
>> -- 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
> 

-- 
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/20131130/0dc5e5b7/attachment.sig>