<html>
<body>
Joy,<br>
I have been working along the same line at the IUCG. <br><br>
1. you will find the IUWW (Intelligent Use/Internet Users Working Wiki)
at
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_Multi-stakeholderism" eudora="autourl">
http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_Multi-stakeholderism</a><br>
2. this is in the
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations" eudora="autourl">
http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations</a>
section.<br><br>
At 19:25 16/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Very good start John but could I
add a comment…<br>
<br>
I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define MSism and
even in those contexts where the term is being used to describe a process
there is an implicit assumption of trustworthiness of the various
parties. That is, there seems to be a belief in/acceptance of the
good faith of the various parties -- no hidden motives, no hidden
agendas, no hidden loyalties or financial (or other) relationships. Thus
there seems to be an expectation that people/"stakeholders" are
who and what they say they are and that their involvement is transparent
and their only specific accountability is what they are presenting
through their contribution to the MS process itself.<br>
<br>
Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to
define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or
definition of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even
the likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; that
various of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's terms below,
be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but may
rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, group,
corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it may be that
the assumption by some of the existance of a "common purpose"
could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some
circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could
exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) as
"stakeholders".</blockquote><br>
Michael, <br><br>
this is definitly true. This is why we have to stop considering that the
internet is "democratic" (actualy we mean "fair and
friendly" old days). The network should be neutral, not out of any
universal philia or human right philantropy, but because this is for each
of us the way to get it effilient (efficient and resilient) when having
to fight and win others. ICANN by-laws and OpenStand word it "to
foster competition".<br><br>
The IUCG intends to contribute through its
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness" eudora="autourl">
http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness</a>
section.<br><br>
Monarchy, democracy, polycracy are not ideals, they are <u>mecanisms</u>.
<br><br>
Under given circumstances these mechanisms are more or less favorable to
a poltical, legal, military, international, moral, cultural, economical,
etc. <u>ethics</u> that (when applied) permit to better attain a societal
ideal, i.e. an <u>esthetic</u> the monarch, a congress, a consensus has
chosen.<br><br>
* <b><u>Monarchy</u></b> is a centralized network system that calls for a
king, delegates to Counts and is advised by Concelors. It is the basic
system, when the rules of the royal familly are accepted as the common
laws.<br><br>
* <b><u>Democracy</u></b> is a decentralized network systel that calls
for a core leadership by the eponym archon (President), assisted by the
basileus archon (Sheriff) and the polemarch archon (Commander in Chief)
supported by an elected Agora (Congress). It is the value added system
which is needed when free men want to decide the law. The US built
themselves on this model.<br><br>
* <b><u>Polycracy </u></b>is distributed network system that becomes
necessary when the societal organization becomes a sovereignties meshed
complexity. For 150 years we are increasingly learning about policracy.
First, with subsidiarity (rules must come from the nearest one) and
substitution (if the nearest one fails, the one above must take-over for
the shortest time): Europe is building itself on these premises. We
discover with the behavior of the whole digital ecosystem that it comes
with multistakeholderism - as we discovered with industrial pollution
that it comes with the precautionary principle. etc.<br><br>
Now, we have to consider the targets: the esthetic ideal for the human
society:<br><br>
* The <b><u>WSIS</u></b> esthetic is "<b>people centered</b>".
<br><br>
* The <b><u>IETF/IAB </u></b>esthetic was "to make the internet
<b>work better</b>" along RFC 3935 <b>core values</b> (here was the
dream of supposed "democratic" loyal and disinterested philia).
<br><br>
* The <b><u>OpenStand</u></b> esthetic for the "future of the
internet cooperation" is to <b>foster a FRAND competition</b> since
the economics of global markets and consumers drive the technological
advancements. <br><br>
The MSism to be discussed in during <b>Brazil autumn</b> (april in south
hemisphere) by the "family" (Telcos included), is not going to
be "people centered" but, pragmatically, to "foster
competition". This means to make more money blackmailing every of us
with the true/false data collected on us. This is what I call the ...
"<a href="http://blackdata.biz/" eudora="autourl">
http://blackdata.biz</a>".<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
NB. A professional and objective descriptin of this reality is in Ronald
Diebert's
<a href="http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no6_2.pdf">
http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no6_2.pdf</a> - a text to
carefully digest.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
That being the case what would/could an effective MS process look
like?<br>
<br>
M<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net
[<a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John
Curran<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:25 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jeremy Malcolm<br>
<b>Cc:</b> bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting
participants<br>
<br>
On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm
<<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<br>
The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day sessions,
covering just about all of the most critical Internet policy issues of
the moment. Although the
<a href="http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013">agenda</a> (particularly for
Day 1 morning) is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government
surveillance, the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet
goverernance, Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10
and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more<br>
<br>
I note on the agenda is the item "What is
multi-stakeholderism?" (presumably with <br>
respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance)<br>
<br>
As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone is
using the<br>
term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with
some <br>
clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it were
to be defined<br>
from the civil society perspective)<br>
<br>
In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require:<br>
<br>
- Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common
purpose?<br>
<br>
- Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all interested
parties?<br>
<br>
- Documents and materials made freely available online to all
parties?<br>
<br>
- Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide
consideration of all inputs/views?<br>
<br>
- Respect for all participants involved?<br>
<br>
If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term
"multi-stakeholder"<br>
(in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it,
although the term<br>
does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid set
of principles<br>
regarding its use. If this suggestion is not aligned with your
present plans or goals for<br>
the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired.<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
/John<br>
<br>
Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not formed via
multi-stakeholder <br>
processes (unless one credits various portions of my consciousness <br>
with independent stakeholder status... ;-)<br>
<br><br>
</blockquote><br>
At 21:01 16/10/2013, John Curran wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM,
michael gurstein
<<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Very good start John but could I
add a comment…</blockquote><br>
Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was
just my offhand <br>
thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this
topic. <br><br>
I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical
community<br>
have some significant common ground in terms of belief in
multi-stakeholder <br>
principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common
definition (if <br>
that is achievable.)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> I think in most of these
discussions both in attempts to define MSism and even in those contexts
where the term is being used to describe a process there is an implicit
assumption of trustworthiness of the various parties. That is,
there seems to be a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various
parties -- no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or
financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an expectation
that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say they are
and that their involvement is transparent and their only specific
accountability is what they are presenting through their contribution to
the MS process itself.</blockquote><br>
<chuckle><br><br>
I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an
agenda; it may or may be <br>
"hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each
other, but presumably there is <br>
still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make
progress, yes? <br>
For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a meeting,
I've pretty much got to <br>
carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these may
be 'hidden' to anyone<br>
who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the Montevideo
Statement on Future of<br>
Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply
lack of understanding of common<br>
goals that might already exist.<br><br>
The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective goal or
common purpose, that <br>
should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place,
particularly if the time is taken to<br>
find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which reduces
the possibility of<br>
working to different ends because of different underlying
beliefs.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> Without going into it I
think if we are going to attempt to define/articulate a realistic and
robust "MS process" or definition of MSism we have to take into
account the possibility, even the likelihood, that the above set of
beliefs does not hold true; thatvarious of the stakeholders for example
might not, in John's terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal
or common purpose" but may rather be working to (non-revealed)
purposes of individual, group, corporate, ideological or national
self-interest. In fact it may be that the assumption by some of the
existance of a "common purpose" could be self-destructively
"naïve" and that in some circumstance at least no common goal
or purpose does or even could exist among those who are defininng
themselves (and being accepted) as
"stakeholders".</blockquote><br>
I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which is not
a situation of unknown<br>
motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or subterfuge by
a participant); my only <br>
advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting views
and positions so that <br>
such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time.<br><br>
For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services
offered by ARIN are set by<br>
proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the
greater Internet community <br>
but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP
address policy, which we believe <br>
should be open to all and whose processes should subject to widespread
accountability/oversight<br>
to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a
discussion with civil society for me <br>
to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference that
ARIN is wonderful and completely <br>
guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be
shown to be disingenuous given <br>
existing documentation and other public statements showing that we
strongly feel that our members <br>
(who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that we
offer and fees that we charge.<br>
My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that
getting participants to speak up <br>
and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might
(over time) provide some protection <br>
against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a
suggestion on this; I'm afraid that<br>
defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous
intentionally bad actors may <br>
not be readily achievable.<br><br>
/John<br><br>
Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at
your own risk. <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</blockquote><br>
At 22:34 16/10/2013, joy wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi all - since Parminder and I
are facilitating this opening session and the definitions discussion, I
think it would be useful to collate some of these ideas, with your
permission :-)<br>
If others have ideas or suggestions they would like to share beforehand,
please do so, I have started a pirate pad for this purpose:<br>
<a href="http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ">
http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ</a><br><br>
Kind regards<br><br>
Joy Liddicoat<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
On 17/10/2013 8:01 a.m., John Curran wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM,
michael gurstein
<<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Very good start John but could I
add a comment…</blockquote><br>
Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was
just my offhand <br>
thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this
topic. <br><br>
I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical
community<br>
have some significant common ground in terms of belief in
multi-stakeholder <br>
principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common
definition (if <br>
that is achievable.)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> I think in most of these
discussions both in attempts to define MSism and even in those contexts
where the term is being used to describe a process there is an implicit
assumption of trustworthiness of the various parties. That is,
there seems to be a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various
parties -- no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or
financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an expectation
that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say they are
and that their involvement is transparent and their only specific
accountability is what they are presenting through their contribution to
the MS process itself.</blockquote><br>
<chuckle><br><br>
I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an
agenda; it may or may be <br>
"hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each
other, but presumably there is <br>
still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make
progress, yes? <br>
For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a meeting,
I've pretty much got to <br>
carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these may
be 'hidden' to anyone<br>
who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the Montevideo
Statement on Future of<br>
Internet Cooperation, etc. That doesn't mean bad intent, simply
lack of understanding of common<br>
goals that might already exist.<br><br>
The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective goal or
common purpose, that <br>
should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place,
particularly if the time is taken to<br>
find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which reduces
the possibility of<br>
working to different ends because of different underlying
beliefs.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> Without going into it I
think if we are going to attempt to define/articulate a realistic and
robust "MS process" or definition of MSism we have to take into
account the possibility, even the likelihood, that the above set of
beliefs does not hold true; thatvarious of the stakeholders for example
might not, in John's terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal
or common purpose" but may rather be working to (non-revealed)
purposes of individual, group, corporate, ideological or national
self-interest. In fact it may be that the assumption by some of the
existance of a "common purpose" could be self-destructively
"naïve" and that in some circumstance at least no common goal
or purpose does or even could exist among those who are defininng
themselves (and being accepted) as
"stakeholders".</blockquote><br>
I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which is not
a situation of unknown<br>
motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or subterfuge by
a participant); my only <br>
advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting views
and positions so that <br>
such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time.<br><br>
For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services
offered by ARIN are set by<br>
proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the
greater Internet community <br>
but a more defined subset. Compare this with the development of IP
address policy, which we believe <br>
should be open to all and whose processes should subject to widespread
accountability/oversight<br>
to Internet community at large. While it might be favorable in a
discussion with civil society for me <br>
to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference that
ARIN is wonderful and completely <br>
guided by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be
shown to be disingenuous given <br>
existing documentation and other public statements showing that we
strongly feel that our members <br>
(who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that we
offer and fees that we charge.<br>
My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that
getting participants to speak up <br>
and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might
(over time) provide some protection <br>
against actual bad actors in the process. That's all I have as a
suggestion on this; I'm afraid that<br>
defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous
intentionally bad actors may <br>
not be readily achievable.<br><br>
/John<br><br>
Disclaimer: My thoughts alone. No warranty applies; use at
your own risk. <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>