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

[Deirdre Williams]

Do you think the problem might be in the words. I have an intense dislike
of the term "level playing field" because it is completely blind to the
state of the players - are they all wearing football boots, are they all
properly fed? "Equal footing" expresses a similar situation - everyone has
the same surface underneath their feet, but what about the feet themselves?
Would it be possible to express what we want to say with a different
metaphor, or even try to fit it into plain words?
Deirdre


On 27 July 2014 08:32, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/40538902/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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