[bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants

[michael gurstein]

Very good start John but could I add a comment


 

I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define MSism and
even in those contexts where the term is being used to describe a process
there is an implicit assumption of trustworthiness of the various parties.
That is, there seems to be a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the
various parties -- no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties
or financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an expectation
that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say they are and that their
involvement is transparent and their only specific accountability is what
they are presenting through their contribution to the MS process itself.

 

Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to
define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition of MSism
we have to take into account the possibility, even the likelihood, that the
above set of beliefs does not hold true; that various of the stakeholders
for example might not, in John's terms below, be "work(ing) to collective
goal or common purpose" but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes
of individual, group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In
fact it may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common
purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some circumstance
at least no common goal or purpose does or even could  exist among those who
are defininng themselves (and being accepted) as "stakeholders".

 

That being the case what would/could an effective MS process look like?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:25 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants

 

On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:





The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions,
covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of the
moment.  Although the  <http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013> agenda
(particularly for Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass
government surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet
goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and
the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more

 

I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably
with 

respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance)

 

As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone is
using the

term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with some 

clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it were to
be defined

from the civil society perspective)

 

In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require:

 

- Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common
purpose?

 

- Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all interested
parties?

 

- Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties?

 

- Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide
consideration of all inputs/views?

 

- Respect for all participants involved?

 

If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term
"multi-stakeholder"

(in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it,
although the term

does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid set of
principles

regarding its use.  If this suggestion is not aligned with your present
plans or goals for

the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired.

 

Thanks!

/John

 

Disclaimers: My views alone.  These views were not formed via
multi-stakeholder 

                   processes (unless one credits various portions of my
consciousness 

                   with independent stakeholder status... ;-)

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131016/6323f5f2/attachment.htm>