CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

[Avri Doria]

On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF will
> never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. Anyways, so
> much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.


I tend to disagree.  For me it is  a critical phrase in the definition
for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a few
governments and misunderstood by many.  It is such a simple term, with a
simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using it.  And I
think that many different groups can be on an equal footing with each
other at the same time.  For example, we could have a global
multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal
footing.  Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to
discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk
when they went off to talk among themselves.  To my mind there is no
dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant
exchange without equal footing.

I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on an
equal footing the better.  But the realist in me realizes that we aren't
there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct democracy in
my lifetime.  That is why I indicate that in those cases, where the
final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it "may be
assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these decision makers
are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions
and the implementations."  Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.

The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we
obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in
various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to
particular cases   The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking
about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy
or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture design
in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or the ITU on
telephone numbers.  The point is that as much as possible the discussion
leading up to the actual decisions, including the recommendation of
solutions, it should be multistakeholder.  And in as many cases as
possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.

As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people
neutral in that respect.  I find it works well for me both in explaining
things, in studying things and in modeling various real life scenarios
and in tactical thinking for advocacy.

Your mileage may vary.

avri

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