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

Deirdre Williams williams.deirdre at gmail.com
Mon Jul 28 11:19:18 EDT 2014 

Dear All,
Responding to Ian's reminder, and to the discussion generally - what is a
stake? who holds one? how/why do they hold it?
Somewhere about 2004 (possibly earlier) it looks as if stakeholder and
shareholder became confused (my conjecture, possibly through a shareholder
being described as having a stake in a company?) Prior to that, stakeholder
seems to have been seen "officially" as the neutral third party without a
personal interest who holds the stakes or wagers until the matter of the
bet is resolved. The term now seems to have flipped completely to mean
someone with an interest of some type in the issue at hand. Perhaps the
contradictory flip from "without personal interest" to "with personal
interest" helps explain some of the difficulties with the term?
So is a stake an interest?
Is the holder a person or a group of people?
I was discussing the second question last month with someone from this
region (LAC) and he suggested the following answer -
"Also from a practical standpoint, a group viewpoint would tend to carry
more weight than an individual one so it would behove like-minded
individuals to organise themselves in representing their views (e.g.
individuals into civil society groups or even groups into lobbies). In
addition, I also have the sense of multistakeholder as implying a  group of
stakeholders of equal status. To my mind, this would work best if the
substantive stakeholders are either groups or individuals, but not both
together."
This is my response to that issue:
"There is an inherent inequality about this which is always overlooked.
Corporations and organisations already have an existence. They are held
together by existing structures. However the end users are an amorphous lot
(as well as being the clear majority, all 3 billion of them) To require
them to organise themselves so that they have the right to speak puts them
at an extreme disadvantage, particularly considering the diversity of their
opinions. An "innovative" thing about the Internet ... is that essentially
it functions at the level of the individual. Perhaps we need to learn to
use it at the level of the individual too. It's amazing how much
prominence, within organisations, is given to physical meetings. The recent
ICANN meeting in London was attended by about 3000 people: the constituency
of the internet end user is 3 billion, a billion times bigger."
If we can reach some sort of agreement on who or what a stakeholder is,
then I think it will become easier to find consensus on multistakeholder
process, or multistakeholderism.
Sorry for the long message
Deirdre


On 27 July 2014 16:22, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Trying to go back to the original discussion -
>
> I hear all the reasons why we can’t avoid discussing equal footing. But
> the beginning here was the idea of a consensual statement on
> multistakeholderism – I think we should work on that, with as good a
> reference to equal footing as we can agree on at this stage, rather than
> divert to trying to develop a common position on what equal footing means.
>
> Because I think we can get somewhere on a multistakeholderism statement.
>
> Ian
>
>  *From:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 4:58 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; McTim
> <dogwallah at gmail.com>
>  *Subject:* Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance]
> Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
>
>
>   McTim,
>
> You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
> from, the ITU/WSIS breed.
> First of all, I'd contend that the constituency-based approach at ICANN
> was and still is an instance of MSism. Don't take my word for it; as soon
> as the WSIS process made the term 'multistakeholder' fashionable, we've
> heard it a lot reclaimed in ICANN's ranks. So much so that they have now
> re-devised their old constituency groupings into stakeholder groupings.
> However, as far as I know, ICANN only dealt with its direct stakeholders as
> organization, that is, the domain name industry, the technical community
> (security and stability aspects of the net), and the business, particularly
> via the lenses of IPR issues.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the very early failed attempt at direct voting by end
> users for their reps on the board of directors, but after that it took many
> years for the Noncommercial user constituency to be recognized (only as
> part of the GNSO community) and for ICANN itself to get the ALAC structures
> going. (Please feel free to correct me or complete if I'm missing any major
> aspect of things here; I'm just summarizing on the flight.) At the end of
> the day, constituencies and stakeholders at ICANN have also had to be
> divided into separate groupings with an identity label -- and so it was
> before WSIS started.
>
> Was that then a perfect instance of MSism which ITU-WSIS came to spoil? I
> just once to have this clarified once for all as to what you exactly mean
> everything you point to ITU as having put the worm in the fruit (or
> whatever colloquialism I'm missing to remember correctly here) by
> delineating stakeholder groups as it did during the WSIS process.
>
> Beyond that, I'd also appreciate if you can give references or pointers to
> any clear formulations (e.g, RFC or excerpt of charter, of rules and
> operating procedures of relevant groups, or other informal text that may
> have served for guidance in implementing MSism, etc.) of instances of MSism
> you deem successful or which should be taken as reference (such as any
> version of "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+
> decades.") My apologies if that has been done before, as I suspect it could
> have.
>
> Thanks and cheers,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
>> > "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good
>> >> in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally
>> >> good for the foxes...
>> >
>> > Equal footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to
>> > escape?
>> >
>> > SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)
>> >
>> > On a more serious note, how should the following be classified?
>> >
>> > During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document, the
>> > UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears to
>> > the proposal to include a reference to the civil society WSIS
>> > declaration alongside the governmental one.
>>
>>
>> We have to keep in mind that the "MS" IG processes which emanate from
>> Geneva are not the same sort of MSism that built and developed the
>> Internet for the last 3+ decades.  Those are the models we should be
>> using, NOT the ones that come from Geneva.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140728/55cf8af2/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

More information about the Governance mailing list