[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>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>> else.
>>> 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 mailing list