Re: "stakeholders" was: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl Auerbach wrote:
> May I suggest that we forever drop the word "stakeholders".
>
> That word has been used repeatedly to disenfranchise those who are
> affected by ICANN's positions and to create privileged classes who have
> been fortunate enough (or powerful enough) to have been anointed with the
> attribute "stakeholder".

I disagree: I believe that the word "stakeholder" precisely expresses the 
meaning of all the individual and bodies that have interests at stake, 
whether they are users or not of the Internet, whether they do have 
commercial or other involvment or not, provided that they are in some way 
interested (or affected) by the outcome (or lack thereof) of ICANN's policy 
making or other actions.

The problem is that the term has been used restrictively and (here I agree 
with Karl) in a way to determine desenfranchisement (sp?) of large parts of 
the less powerful stakeholders is not a fault of the term used, but a fault 
of how the term has been used.

To use the term stakeholder as opposed to user or individual underlines the 
role of the stakeholder, and a reason for participation: because he/she has 
an interest at stake.
This is a non trivial fact for who, like me, is engaged in involving people 
in AtLarge participation. In the process of contacting people (and 
organizations) to convince them to participate, the only way is to make 
clear that they do have an interest at stake, and therefore that they are 
legitimate stakeholders.
The statement that every individual on earth should be a member of AtLarge, 
although a very important statement of principle, would not make us make any 
progress, because does not answer the fundamental question: "So what?". 
Which you can translate in "Why should I bother losing time and money for 
participating in ICANN?". "Because it is your right!" is not a sufficient 
answer to make them active.

Also, I believe that if we make a correct (and complete) stakeholder 
analysis, in the classical sense of the term, we will have to make a 
distinction among different types of stakeholders. And probably here the 
analyses of Karl and myself diverge more deeply.
There are stakeholders for which the ICANN circus has a fundamental 
life-or-death importance, others for which it is largely irrelevant. For 
instance, the nomad in Central Asia, although potentially affected like 
every human being by the Internet, will not see a lot of change in his/her 
life as a consequence of the decisions ICANN will make. This is not the case 
for a domain name holder. ICANN is even less irrelevant for Registries 
(ccTLDs or gTLDs). I am not sure that the principle that thousands of nomads 
in Central Asia, unaffected by the consequences of their decisions, could 
determine these decisions.
In an abstract (and ideal) world, there might be merits in this approach, 
but in a concrete (and pragmatic) world, where costs and benefits have to be 
carefully balanced, and where a manicheistic approach is a severe 
limitation, I doubt this is the case. I prefer a workable 80% solution to an 
unworkable 100% solution.

This does not imply in any way an endorsement or agreement of the ICANN 
process so far: ICANN has made serious mistakes, that need to be corrected, 
but I am still in search for a workable solution in a reasonable timeframe, 
not fror a perfect solution that neither myself nor my children are likely 
to see in our life span.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail