[governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...)

[McTim]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:31 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

<snip>

>> Some of us who support multi-equal stakeholdersim in IG do not think
>> categories are useful.
>
>
> I am happy for IGC to develop a position on whether stakeholder categories
> exist or they do not


Of course they exist, but mostly in the "Geneva-style" of IG that we,
unfortunately, focus on.


..... I can accept either scenario and develop my
> thinking and positions over it. However, people can not be arguing one
> position when it suits them and the opposite when it so suits. ( I aint
> speaking about you.) The biggest problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) is
> that it refuses to enter into such clear basic categories

We are humans, things get messy.  We can't be sorted into piles neatly.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- 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