[discuss] Representative Multistakeholderism (was: Re: Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013)

Tue Dec 24 17:35:29 UTC 2013

On Dec 24, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there an up-to-date reference document you could point to regarding the "open multistakeholder" model or any other similar model?

I do not know of any; I am aware of the use of the phrase in reference to models of participation
which are open to anyone (e.g. this mailing list, an IETF working group, the various RIR address
policy development processes)

I am very comfortable with the open multistakeholder approach to outcome development, but 
do not believe it to be viable for smaller bodies (e.g. steering or coordinating groups of finite
membership); these requirements are handled in the IETF via their NomCom process for seating
IESG members, and via various methods in each RIR (in ARIN's case we have a membership vote 
to elect ARIN Advisory Council members who help administer the policy development process.)
With multiple eyes watching the outcome development process (whether that be working group
outputs or address policy), it's usually sufficient to promote adherence to the open participation
processes and provide for fair opportunity to anyone interested who has a good idea (modulo 
constraints on time or resources to do so)

> I have been thinking about these questions, too from the moment it became clear to me that people have issues with the empirical definition of stakeholder (whatever that might be) through the proxy of recognizing a person as from one or another stakeholder group. We all know people may relate to more than one stakeholder group, and I personally don't like relying too much on labels when it comes to human beings. And yet, there seems to be a tension in embracing "multistakeholderism" while rejecting the need to structure stakeholders, precisely for the purposes of facilitating recognition and representation. 

I think it is important to have diverse perspectives of trusted folks seated on the coordinating
committee; I actually have little care how they got there as long as they act with integrity on
arrival.   This lack of concern may be falsely placed, in that I'm assuming that the coordinating
committee will focus on enabling fair and open participation for everyone who wishes to join in
outcome development for 1net, and that the final outcomes produced will be based on whatever 
achieves rough consensus as being potentially worthwhile solutions to the issues undertaken.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.