[governance] FW: [discuss] What is MSism?

[Karl Auerbach]

It looks to me as if some of us are using similar words but intending
different meanings.  (That kind of ambiguity often is the cause of
perceived differences where no real difference of opinion exists.)

It seems OK to me to endow "stakeholder" labels when we are asking those
"stakeholders" for information or clarification.  Jeannette H. uses
"multistakholder" in that sort of context.

But on the other hand, "stakeholder" (multi or otherwise) is also being
used in the context of the allocation of the power to make a decision on
a matter.  (It is this use to which I have strong objection.)

To make things more concrete, based on an example that is getting
increasingly warm here in California: Hydro Fracking for natural gas and
petroleum.

It makes sense for our elected representatives (and other bodies) that
are trying to gather information to call upon oil companies for
information.  In that sense labeling those oil companies as
"stakeholders" seems OK, albeit it would be better to simply indicate
that they are parties that have direct relevant experience that is
worthy of being heard and considered as evidence - but not as
determinative of the outcome.

However, it would be odd indeed if we were to give those oil companies
voting seats in the legislature merely by virtue of the fact that they
are oil companies that want to engage in fracking,  Yet that is largely
what we are doing with "multistakeholder" thought here in the lands of
internet governance.

Regarding Jeannette H's note about direct democracy - I agree that such
is hard, although it is certainly less hard now then it was before
massive electronic communications.  (I say that in terms of an informed
electorate as opposed to the rather complicated question of actual
casting and counting of votes.)

But I look on the question of direct vs representative systems as
orthogonal to the granting of votes in either system based on whether
some god-like overseer says that person X or corporation Y or trade
group Z is worth as a "stakeholder".

And finally, regarding things that affect many but are observed by few,
such as the IANA "protocol parameter" function.  That is an example of a
function that is largely non-contentious and clerical.  Those kinds of
functions can be handled by the establishment of procedural rules that
must be followed, an oversight body to audit whether those procedures
are, in fact, being followed, and acts of that function handled via a
notice and comment system.

Such low-discretion, non-contentious, clerical jobs ought to be clearly
and completely separated from governance jobs that contain discretion or
are contentious.  For example, we have seen how ICANN often does a Sally
Rand Fan Dance to distract eyes from its naughty bits by waving around a
big IANA function fan.

	--karl--

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