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

[JFC Morfin]

At 15:48 19/09/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote:
>I will follow this thread with attention to see if somebody will 
>enlight me on how MSism could function fairly without a functional 
>definition of the categories of stakeholders...

Daniel,

I am afraid there is an on-going misunderstanding that affects all 
the attempts in that area. Multistakeholderism is not about the 
stakeholders as they discuss them, but about the stakes and the power 
flows that may influence them.

>As a mathematician I am ready to adopt fuzzy logic in stead of 
>boolean as long as it is coherent and complete. ;-)

The question is to know if the "multism" makes it this a mathematic 
or semantic issue. In any case this is beyon linear logic. IMHO we 
are in full polylectic agorics with different sets of principles 
depending on the stakeholders group and sub-groups. In addition 
linguistic fuzziness and technical approximation adds to doctrinal 
quantism (please note that I do not take side in realism vs quantism 
here :-) !!!) and the absence of political/philosophical/social coalitions.

Take care.
jfc






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