CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
Mwendwa Kivuva
Kivuva at transworldafrica.com
Tue Jul 29 05:11:09 EDT 2014
Ian, probably multistakeholder is not defined yet because it is
composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too is
composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then, Multistakeholder
is composed of three words
On 29/07/2014, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Interesting Deirdre.
>
> The Oxford Dictionary gives the word both meanings, with the one you mention
> tied specifically to gambling instances.
>
> But more broadly, it also defines stakeholder as
>
> "A person with an interest or concern in something"
>
> which I think works well for our context.
>
> Interestingly, the Oxford or any other dictionary does not yet define
> multistakeholder.
>
> Definitions seem to vary. According to Lawrence E. Strickling, U.S.
> Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, and NTIA
> Administrator, "the multistakeholder process, ... involves the full
> involvement of all stakeholders, consensus-based decision-making and
> operating in an open, transparent and accountable manner". So that seems to
> be what one product champion (US Government) seems to think it is.
>
> I think there is plenty of room for improvement and clarification there.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> From: Deirdre Williams
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:19 AM
> To: Internet Governance ; Ian Peter
> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
> tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
>
> 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
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:58 AM
> To: Internet Governance ; McTim
> 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
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
--
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh
The best athletes never started as the best athletes.
You have to think anyway, so why not think big? - Donald Trump.
"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky.
Tackle the biggest frog first.
I will persist until I succeed - Og Mandino.
-------------- 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