[Icann-see] Fwd: Web site seedig.net

[Narine Khachatryan]

Hello again,

In that case we will continue without any criterions and any rules. I
understand your approach well, our universe was created out of chaos, after
all.

Best regards,

Narine

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Dusan Stojicevic <dusan at dukes.in.rs>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> If there is a bottom-up initiative about the process or some rules,
> there should be comments by many others in the community. If there are
> no comments, then what you have is a single opinion.
>
> Regards,
> Dusan
>
>
>
> On 13.1.2016 20:23, Narine Khachatryan wrote:
> > Dear Dusan,
> >
> > My suggestion below about developing common criterions for proper
> > stakeholder representation was not commented by you. It's a sensitive
> > issue, certainly. Do we have enough capacities and knowledge to touch it
> > upon?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Narine
> >
> > ​On
> > Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:09 AM
> > ​
> > *
> > ​
> > Narine Khachatryan* <ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com
> > <mailto:ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com>>
> > ​ wrote:​
> > ​
> > Dear Dusan,
> >
> > A small remark regarding
> > ​what can be added to
> > SEEDIG process, as you suggested in the previous email. I looked through
> > ​
> >  http://www.seedig.net/about/ .
> >
> > It has been noted by many Internet Governance activists, that one of the
> > main issues of multistakeholderism has been related to an appropriate
> > stakeholder representation, as well as the inclusion of underrepresented
> > groups, so on and so forth.
> >
> > Since different organisations represent and advocate for various
> > interests (with the purpose of finding a common ground), and since not
> > rarely representatives wear many hats, could we in frames of SEEDIG
> > process develop a common approach to stakeholder representation issue.
> >
> > That common approach, based on certain criterions, could help us to be
> > if not more accurate, but at least more adequate in issues, such as
> > 'which hat is primary for this or that representative'.
> >
> > Do we give priority to people who wear several hats? If yes, how do we
> > decide (based on what criterions) which stakeholder group he/she
> > represents primarily? We all know about colliding interests.
> >
> > Or on the contrary do we try to engage people who represent only a
> > single stakeholder group?
> >
> > This common approach / framework could also be another effort towards if
> > not including, but at least not missing important voices of parts of the
> > public who are usually unable to deliver their voices effectively.
> >
> > ​Best regards,
> >
> > Narine​
> ​
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.rnids.rs/pipermail/seedig/attachments/20160114/a29221c8/attachment.htm>