<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
I have seen hundreds of discussions here which begin by </font>the
poser, and a basic political question - how can those who are
already among the most powerful - big business - be actually given
rights to make public policy decisions on par with people's
representatives, quickly end up in responses like how can you keep
industry out of the room or not consult them.. !!???<br>
<br>
It seems to be of no avail that the original questioner keeps
asserting that neither that person nor it seems anyone else ever
said that industry should not be consulted - however elaborate a
meaning be applied to the term 'consultation' ....<br>
<br>
There is a huge huge difference between consulting and being a part
of decision making, that too, specifically on public policy
making...<br>
<br>
Unless we remained focussed on that 'difference', and also the
specific meaning of 'what is a public policy', and what does 'making
and enforcing public policy entail' , we wont make progress on
discussing this particular issue - the political role and status, or
even definition, of multistakeholderism. If there is will here to
discuss these elements seperately we can perhaps do that. Because
multistakeholder (public) policy making is the new elephant in the
IG room, and it better be addressed upfront. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 25 March 2014 05:32 AM,
Barry Shein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:21296.51077.915144.99973@world.std.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On March 22, 2014 at 16:18 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a> (michael gurstein) wrote:
>
> Is it really acceptable for the process towards the establishment of global
> standards for sugar intake to be "(co)sponsored" by Coca Cola for example;
> or for that matter for Coca Cola to have a member on the Board of one of the
> key technical bodies making recommendations towards those standards?
I'm not sure this analogy is apt, as much as I sympathize with the
sentiment.
This is more like Coke having membership on the board of a group which
is setting standards for grocery shelving. It probably exists.
Surely Coke would have a legitimate interest just like anyone else
involved (supermarkets, delivery companies, etc.) And that interest
may well be self-interested but there's no obvious reason why it
should not be involved or why this would be bad.
Now, if Coke used that position to favor their bottle sizes over that
of competitors that might be a problem. But that would be the end
result of a lopsided or corrupted process rather than a mistake
letting them into the room.
But the purpose of the IETF et al is not to stand between the public
and the manufacturers.
Most of the IETF's work is to standardize practices among
manufacturers (providers, etc.) in the belief that this produces a
result in the public's interest by improving interoperability.
I don't believe I am splitting a hair: I think there is a time and
place for consumer advocacy groups, and industry advocacy groups, and
standards development bodies.
Their interests often overlap in significant ways but much of their
effort is disjoint.
Put simply: Merely having a pecuniary interest in a result is not a
/prima facie/ justification for disenfranchisement.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>