[Mmwg] meissen formula

[Avri Doria]

hi,

one of the reasons i refered to the formula i sent as 'silly' is =20
because it was in a silly mood when i decided to fomalize the =20
convernsations we had in symbolic notation.

yet, i think it has value as a conversation starter, even if the =20
concern is for practical modalities.  and of course the thoughts of =20
those steeped in a week of academic musing will  seem somewhat silly =20
to us when we become sober and have the activist or practical hat on.

but i think there may be some value in looking at it.  we are =20
certainly faced with challenges in promoting a multistakeholder =20
model.  there are many views on the model and i do not believe that =20
is yet a pervasive understanding of the model.  yet in all of the =20
wsis follow-on efforts, not only IGF, there is a commitment to =20
finding an effecting such a model.  and in a global sense i see a =20
long way to go.

some specific comment on your response.


On 28 aug 2007, at 10.42, Avri Doria wrote:

>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks Avri for reminding me of the Meissen equation.  Alas, it =20
>> probably
>>  sounded better to us there and then than it will here and now; might
>> have been the wine.

that Sachsen wine was good.

>> And anyway my issues with the enhanced cooperation
>> component and its relation to MS remain.  Most EC has been IGC or PSC
>> not MSC (much less MSG), ergo =B7C3 isn't MSG---indeed, some of its =
key
>> instanciations have been quite contrary to MSG as promised in the =20
>> TA and
>> envisioned by the MMWG.

i think, if i understand what you are trying to say here, i agree.  =20
though it remains to be seen if, when added together they are still =20
contrary to a multistakeholder effort.

from my own view, when i looked at the idea of multistakeholder =20
governance being the sum of an acts of enhanced cooperation (EC), i =20
was concerned that something was missing.  to say that many bilateral =20=

or even trilateral acts of EC add up to multistakeholder governance =20
leaves out the efforts of all stakehholders working together as peers =20=

which is, i beleive one of the hallmarks of multistakeholder =20
governance (msg note: this does not need to mean the flavor enhancer =20
in chinese food - yum, could also be seen as the message)

>>
>> M-O-U-S-E...I can't believe I wrote the last sentence with a straight
>> face.  I guess the summer really is over...
>>

is not!

>> Anyway, like Karen, I think the difficulties and challenges weigh =20
>> more
>> heavily in my mind at the moment than elaborating modalities.

how do we overcome the difficulties and challenges you see without a =20
blueprint of what we are trying to achieve.  i still believe that the =20=

notion of multstakeholderism is still too new to be more then a buzz =20
word without some more thought on what it means and how it can be =20
achieved.    that was my thought when this group started up, and i =20
don't think things have gotten all that much clearer in the =20
intervening time.  there have been some independent efforts to define =20=

it and sturdy it, but we still don't have a widely accepted view of =20
what it really is or how is could/should be achieved.


>> One would
>> like to think the latter might be a way around the former, but =20
>> it's not
>> clear that the problems are tractable via such niceties.  I'm open to
>> persuasion, but a priori it sounds like an invitation to count =20
>> angels on
>> the head of a pin while the real action is being conducted with =20
>> rather
>> different cutlery.

I agree, it would be silly for you to waste your time counting angels =20=

on the head of pin, i.e just doing theoretical work.  likewise, i =20
have always thought that it was silly to just be active without =20
understanding the design one wanted to acheive and the tactics and =20
models that would make that possible.  i think that it might be =20
reasonable to work down both tracks at the same time especially in an =20=

environment that, at least, by definition is a mutlistakeholder =20
environment that is focused on multistakeholder models as opposed to =20
the specific agenda itself.

a.