[governance] Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model"

[David Cake]

On 24/10/2013, at 5:28 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 2013, at 3:35 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> 	This description of MSism reads very much as if it is equating MSism with the IETF model, or perhaps the RIRs. Now, that would be a bad mistake on its own - the models of MSism governance in ICANN, various ccTLDs, etc are different, and very much not dominated by techies (the strength of MS processes in ICANN etc is getting techies, lawyers, pubic policy people, business folk in the same room talking directly). But the IETF model isn't even clearly a multi-stakeholder one (contributions from all stakeholders are welcome in the IETF, but they come as individuals not stakeholder representatives). 
> 
> David - 
> 
>  Both the RIRs and IETF often have "techies, lawyers, pubic policy 
>  people, business folk in the same room talking directly" when 
>  necessary... that is not unique in any way to ICANN.

	I'm sure that is so - I've never been involved with either, only ICANN, but of course those organisations have also evolved to be far more than just organisations that seek technical solutions in isolation. I just wanted to make the point that the idea of MSism as a 'techies only' model is very far off the reality of current MS processes in practice - quite the reverse, in fact, ICANN processes almost guarantee that you won't have a techies only process for any issue that isn't very technical in nature. 

>  Regarding multistakeholder models, there are both "open" and 
>  "representative" implementations, with different strengths and 
>  weaknesses to each.  This came up in one of the IGF sessions
>  today ("No. 41 Developing and effectively using Multistakeholder 
>  Principles", by APC & Government of Brazil & ICC BASIS & ISOC),
>  and I'm not certain there is any merit in trying to label one 
>  as less multi-stakeholder than the other.

	There are certainly differences between the two models, and perhaps the 'representative' model is closer to what we normally talk about as multi-stakeholder, but that certainly isn't meant to imply that either is to be preferred. I only used that terminology because a long term IETFer had made that point to me at lunch, but clearly it is a point of linguistic contention . 
	Both models clearly have roles to play in multi-stakeholder decision making. 

	Regards

		David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131024/29317f6d/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t