[discuss] What is MSism?

[Lee Howard]

On 4/16/14 4:20 AM, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

>
>Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com> [2014-04-15 18:34:14 -0500]:
>> the IETF makes no distinction for participation or leadership based on
>>Individuals are not welcome.
>
>Would you say that being open to individuals is a requirement in being
>"multi-stakeholder"?

Maybe.  But it's a requirement for successful Internet governance.
My litmus test: If I can't contribute directly, the process fails.

The current discussions verge on failure, based on the signal to noise
ratio and the number of mailing lists.


>
>Similarly, are only technical coordination bodies fit to use the label
>'multistakeholder'?  Conversely, why don't IETF, IAB, IEEE-SA, W3C, and
>ISOC think 'multistakeholder processes' is an important component of the
>modern paradigm for standards as encapsulated in RFC 6852?  They instead
>use the word "openness".  Are "openness" and "multistakeholder
>processes" equivalent?

That helps clear things up a bit: Internet governance must be open.
"Multi-stakeholder" has no meaning.

Lee