[governance] Proposal: 10 stakeholder categories

[l.d.misek-falkoff]

Fantastic-sharing, and rises above so many proffered ontologies.

Sidebar:  Doesn't Number 14 cover them all?  And up one level on the 'Tree
of Everything', where do animals "fit in?"  And etc.

Appreciatively, with very best wishes and *Respectfully Interfacing*, LDMF.
Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, and etc.



On 6/1/07, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
> Sorry for this but I found the analogy so very tempting:
>
> In "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins," Jorge Luis Borges
> describes "a certain Chinese Encyclopedia," the Celestial Emporium of
> Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided
> into:
>
> 1. those that belong to the Emperor,
> 2. embalmed ones,
> 3. those that are trained,
> 4. suckling pigs,
> 5. mermaids,
> 6. fabulous ones,
> 7. stray dogs,
> 8. those included in the present classification,
> 9. those that tremble as if they were mad,
> 10. innumerable ones,
> 11. those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
> 12. others,
> 13. those that have just broken a flower vase,
> 14. those that from a long way off look like flies.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Norbert Bollow schrieb:
> > How about extending the number of recognized stakeholder categories
> > to ten?
> >
> > I'd suggest something like the following:
> >
> > 1) Governments of industrialized nations
> > 2) Governments of developing countries
> > 3) Inter-governmental organizations
> >
> > 4) Civil society organizations focused on technical concerns
> > 5) Civil society organizations focused on fundamental rights
> > 6) Civil society organizations focused on development concerns
> >
> > 7) ISPs
> > 8) Software vendors and IT consulting businesses
> > 9) Other businesses
> >
> > 10) People who choose to participate in internet governance
> >    discussions as individuals, without representing the interests
> >    of any organization or recognizing any organization as representing
> >    their interests.
> >
> > With this set-up, the understanding of "multistakeholder" as giving
> > equal weight to each of the three main categories "government",
> > "civil society" and "business" is preserved, while recognizing the
> > fundamental differences with regard to internet governance which exist
> > within each of these broad categories.
> >
> > Of course, some organizations fall into more than one category.  For
> > example, the Swiss Internet User Group works on technical concerns
> > and also in the area of fundamental rights.  Therefore, if I was a
> > candidate for the MAG or whatever, I would indicate that I'd represent
> > stakeholder category 4 with weight 0.5 and stakeholder category 5 with
> > weight 0.5
> >
> > The goal of this proposed refinement of the system of stakeholder
> > categories is to make it easier to select a MAG and other
> > multistakeholder groups with truly balanced diversity.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert.
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070601/c0d27e47/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070601/c0d27e47/attachment.txt>