[discuss] What is MSism?
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Mar 30 19:20:02 UTC 2014
On 31/03/2014 04:24, McTim wrote:
> Hi Pranesh,
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> [2014-03-28 08:07:38 -0400]:
>>> <cc list trimmed as per good netiquette>
>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:16 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>>> Tks McTim,
>>>> That paper does provide some clarity while overall reinforcing my central
>>>> point -- multistakeholderism transfers power to the beneficiaries of the
>>>> Internet and away from the democracy that gives protection to everyone
>>> Your insistence that MSism is a new pheonomenon in IG ignores the
>>> history of the past 40 years.
>> Who are the "multiple" stakeholder groups in, for instance, the IETF? What
>> role did civil society and business play in policy formulation in IG in
>> these 40 years? Were they "co-equals" with government?
> there are zero groupings in the IETF.
> All "stakeholders" come together as co-equals in a WG.
And the number of instances in which individuals have been
*excluded* from IETF participation can probably be counted on
the fingers of one hand, and *definitely* counted on the
fingers of both hands: the IETF has very, very rarely applied
its rules to exclude abusive postings.
> Civil Society (and biz) were the only real actors in IG during the
> first few decades, doing the coordination, collaboration,
> communication, etc needed to build the network.
It's worth noting that ISOC has always, to my knowledge, been classed
as Civil Society in WSIS/WGIG and subsequent discussions. And that
ISOC membership has, as far as I know, always been open to any human
being and to any company or organisation in any country.
I don't know any policy that's more inclusive than open participation
and/or open membership. Since that admits all stakeholders that wish to
participate, I don't know any policy that is more favourable to MSism.
> I see gov's only really getting involved in the last 15 years or so,
> with the France v. Yahoo case perhaps a watershed moment. (USG
> funding being an exception of course).
Note that the USG funding was always R&D funding; an important
aspect of the various changes in the 1990s was that DARPA and NSF
funding of the Internet *stopped* as it moved from R&D to regular
operation. Not so different in Europe, either, where EU R&D funding
of network operations was always reluctant to say the least.
To sum up, the Internet has been a hotbed of multiple stakeholders
since 1990 (if not earlier). Asserting otherwise is counter-factual.
Please don't blame those who've been operating in an open-door
MS world for several decades for the fact that others, including
some governments, chose not to participate.
The doors are still open, of course.
More information about the discuss