[bestbits] Re: Multi-Equal Stakeholderism

Sat Nov 30 15:22:47 EST 2013

Hi,

I don't know about how many government types use their government email l. Not sure i understand why that matters. We see bunches using other addresses in IGF space, so I am nor sure it is a clear indicator. In any case I will see if there are any stats.

I certainly know of many academics, some not network scientists who participate.  I any case they are academia.  And one can often see the tussle between doing something the academic way and the patented way. 

I know of privacy experts working for NGOs who participate and even lead.  In the privacy week bein done one sees that policy has been brought in by experts in a technically clear and immediate manner.

It is true one has to achieve a degree of understanding and an ability to speak intelligently, but I find that to be just as true in policy spaces.

In any case I accept that there its a difference of opinion on the degree of multi stakeholder participation in the IETF. I will see if I can dig up any statistics.  I just wanted to contribute another perspective.

Avri Doria

Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131130/05ade60e/attachment.htm>