[discuss] Representative Multistakeholderism (was: Re: Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013)
bismith at paypal.com
Tue Dec 24 18:45:03 UTC 2013
I'm with John regarding perspective and trust for steering, coordinating, and similar groups. These are (or perhaps should be) rather more administrative in function and as such may benefit from individuals more adept at organizational and management skills than issue- or constituency-specific experience.
The ideal, in my mind, are individuals that have both depth and breadth being able to bring and accept issue/constituency perspective along with organizational and process expertise. The collective (steering, coordinating, etc.) group's charge should be to establish a reference frame for acknowledgement, discussion, and resolution of issues amongst the broadest set of participants.Transparency, openness, and inclusivity are essential traits for any such framework to be accepted.
It might be necessary, or at least advisable, to consider partially relaxing adherence to those traits in the formative stages. That's of course only my opinion but I'm comfortable with such a process with the knowledge that the "real work" will be done in the open, with all able to participate, and with a transparency that ensures systemic abuse is apparent.
> On Dec 24, 2013, at 9:36 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> 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.
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss