[Mmwg] meissen formula

[William Drake]

Avri,

I think we're in agreement on everything but the weather (you'll see when
you get here tomorrow--bring your galoshes).  I guess I'm just feeling
bandwidth challenged, which makes the prospect of laboring over MS
modalities while the real action is taking place in non-MS settings a bit
daunting.  But if you, Bertrand, and whomever have the head space to start
the train I'm sure I'll be among those who jump on at some point.

In the meanwhile I await Carlos' econometric exegesis...

BD


On 8/28/07 5:08 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at psg.com> wrote:

> hi,
> 
> one of the reasons i refered to the formula i sent as 'silly' is
> because it was in a silly mood when i decided to fomalize the
> convernsations we had in symbolic notation.
> 
> yet, i think it has value as a conversation starter, even if the
> concern is for practical modalities.  and of course the thoughts of
> those steeped in a week of academic musing will  seem somewhat silly
> 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
> certainly faced with challenges in promoting a multistakeholder
> model.  there are many views on the model and i do not believe that
> is yet a pervasive understanding of the model.  yet in all of the
> wsis follow-on efforts, not only IGF, there is a commitment to
> finding an effecting such a model.  and in a global sense i see a
> 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
>>> 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 
C3 isn't MSG---indeed, some of its key
>>> instanciations have been quite contrary to MSG as promised in the
>>> TA and
>>> envisioned by the MMWG.
> 
> i think, if i understand what you are trying to say here, i agree.
> though it remains to be seen if, when added together they are still
> contrary to a multistakeholder effort.
> 
> from my own view, when i looked at the idea of multistakeholder
> governance being the sum of an acts of enhanced cooperation (EC), i
> was concerned that something was missing.  to say that many bilateral
> or even trilateral acts of EC add up to multistakeholder governance
> leaves out the efforts of all stakehholders working together as peers
> which is, i beleive one of the hallmarks of multistakeholder
> governance (msg note: this does not need to mean the flavor enhancer
> 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
>>> more
>>> heavily in my mind at the moment than elaborating modalities.
> 
> how do we overcome the difficulties and challenges you see without a
> blueprint of what we are trying to achieve.  i still believe that the
> notion of multstakeholderism is still too new to be more then a buzz
> word without some more thought on what it means and how it can be
> achieved.    that was my thought when this group started up, and i
> don't think things have gotten all that much clearer in the
> intervening time.  there have been some independent efforts to define
> it and sturdy it, but we still don't have a widely accepted view of
> 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
>>> 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
>>> angels on
>>> the head of a pin while the real action is being conducted with
>>> rather
>>> different cutlery.
> 
> I agree, it would be silly for you to waste your time counting angels
> on the head of pin, i.e just doing theoretical work.  likewise, i
> have always thought that it was silly to just be active without
> understanding the design one wanted to acheive and the tactics and
> models that would make that possible.  i think that it might be
> reasonable to work down both tracks at the same time especially in an
> environment that, at least, by definition is a mutlistakeholder
> environment that is focused on multistakeholder models as opposed to
> the specific agenda itself.
> 
> a.
>