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

[Norbert Bollow]

I'm not so sure that “common understanding” is really so much more
modest than “definition”. It is common for multiple definitions to
co-exist, but multiple “common understandings”?

One way to work towards clarity of communication when there are
multiple understandings is to add qualifiers. For example, useful
labels may be: “equal-footing multistakeholderism”, “open-participation
multistakeholderism”, “Geneva-style multistakeholdersm”, “democratic
multistakeholderism”, etc.

Personally, I have a definition for “democratic multistakeholderism” at 
http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democratic-multistakeholderism/
and I would greatly appreciate if others would also somehow label and
define their preferred understanding or model of multistakeholderism.

Greetings,
Norbert





On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:16:19 +0000
Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
> sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on "definition'.)
> Note: at times some may also refer to it as working definition,
> whatever designation people are comfortable with works fine for me,
> but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common understanding".
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
> >
> > Just asking
> >
> > N
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
> >> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's a totally different question as to whether
> >> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
> >> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions boil
> >> down to people struggling to understand precisely what
> >> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
> >>
> >> Mawaki
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >


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