<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
thanks - I have added a link to this in the pirate pad:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ">http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ</a><br>
Please, others, do feel free to share and thanks JFC for yours also<br>
<br>
Joy <br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/10/2013 3:12 p.m., Anriette
Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525F4773.1070208@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi all<br>
<br>
I attach the recommendations from a workshop on how to have
effective participative policy processes that APC, CDT and Nepad
convened at the African IGF. It contains some useful and
practical points on how to make these MS type processes more
effective.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/10/2013 03:25, joy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:525F3C9E.60808@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Thanks - I will add these links to the document.<br>
Best<br>
Joy<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/10/2013 12:10 p.m., JFC
Morfin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:md5:cHu+V2oD2Nfi3LS4r8ACng==" type="cite">
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a><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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>