<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Optima; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Optima; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Avri,</span></span></span></span></span></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Tank you for your message, even though it brings no answer to the pending questions. </div><div><br></div><div>Everyone can measure that the issues at stake do have serious consequences. But there is still a difference between "not having the answers" and "trying to elude, or hide the issues at stake". Moreover, if you are not able to bring an answer, or be part of an honest audience that wishes to keep trust around within these present postings, why to bother with an empty message. So thanks for not participating to this very needed endeavor. Then maybe do not feel fill the air with additional vacuum. Vacuum sometimes confuses people. </div><div><br></div><div>Michael, Thomas, me and many others do have a serious, urgent, necessary need for good answers - as you might have noticed, there are people in the 1net "thing" that are transfuses from the lists, and all of that is far from neutral. Democracy is a better deal than Asymmetocracy (see AMS model).</div><div><br></div><div>My impression is that you underestimate what it is at stake Avri, and why Michael's questions are simply absolutely critical. Or do you deliberately try to avoid some hard facts? </div><div><br></div><div>Whatever! We will look elsewhere for answers. And they will come. I agree with Thomas :"Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the billions who will be affected by our actions."</div><div><br></div><div>History will tell who were the decent folks trying to have a fair Internet debate and governance. And who were the Asymmetrics.</div><div><br></div><div>JC</div>
<br><div><div>Le 10 févr. 2014 à 16:58, Avri Doria a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi,<br><br>Umm, we are not Ceasar's Wife as we are not subordinate to the others as Ceasar's wife was to Ceasar. I assume you meant Pompeia as she was the one he divorced with those words.<br><br>We need to be transparent and accountable because that is something that needs to be a default for all groups. /1net could be much more voluntarily transparent and accountable.<br><br>I will not be joining the self-designated&appointed /1net Transparency and Accountability group, having just gotten off such an effort and found it to be exhausting and very time consuming to do a proper and neutral job of it. I wish you all the best of luck at achieving an outcome that others can look at and see as legitimate and useful.<br><br>avri<br><br><br><br>On 10-Feb-14 10:15, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Dear Civil Society Colleagues,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who pepper<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the various governance lists and attend the conferences as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">suspicion. We are Caesars wife<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><<a href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Caesar%27s+wife+must+be+above+suspicion">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Caesar%27s+wife+must+be+above+suspicion</a>>.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent activities<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been resisted is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not, our good work<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">will take place under not in a cloud.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past our<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">heritage.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sincerely,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thomas Lowenhaupt<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Tks George,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Responses inline<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com]<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">To: gurstein michael<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Cc: Peter Ian; <a href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>; Civil IGC Society Internet<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Governance Caucus -; <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1Net<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Michael,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago. I think that we can<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">conversation.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">put his very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Telecom regulatory matters to work in these areas :) /*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">provided people to the 1net steering committee. I admit that I don't<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">differ as it doesn’t bother me. Here is why.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">by" not understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">non-acceptance that we should and have a right to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">knowledge/understanding about that process.. 1Net is important and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">potentially (based on the aspirations that some including yourself<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">below have expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">requirement for full transparency in this and other areas/*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">groups, but not between them. Ultimately, this is not productive; it<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">results in multiple echo chambers — the image that comes to mind is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted. In one form or<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened. We<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">should thank its originators. It is a meeting place, with no content<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">except that which we contribute to it.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you. But 1Net<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">has demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"meeting place". /*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">what process and who had input into this process and by what<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">authorization did they act in this way--without attributing any bias<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/2. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">selection of representation on various of its Committees etc.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">what process and who had input into this process and by what<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">authorization did they act in this way--again without attributing any<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bias or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">or otherwise built into this process/*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/4. it expended resources in designing and producing a set of Forums<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and an associated website--who provided and directed those<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">was deliberately or otherwise built into this process/*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture? You express<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for framing the on-going discussion.” I understand your concern, but<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">were any such concerns, would they not be reported out? Can we not let<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">information requested above was available either internally or<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">externally we have no evidence on the basis of which to make judgments<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">as to whether it is reasonable to let the process continue and extract<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">value from it" and given the lack of information concerning the #1<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">above we again do not have sufficient information to " let the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">concern", particularly since concerns have been expressed with respect<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent selection<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector)./*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ideas to the Brazil meeting. I think that is not correct. Brazil<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and it chose 1net. I suspect that in part it did to want to be the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">others. I don’t blame them; they want to work for solutions, not<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">solve representational disputes.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">both “interposed” and ”interposed itself” and my concern and desire<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"interposed itself" and thus information concerning the background to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1Net should be made available./*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">must meet.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"define existing problems _accurately_" and in a manner that is not<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">overt action) or implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discussion and output as for example, through the exclusion of certain<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">voices or the undue promotion of other voices; or through the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">introduction of latent “filtering/framing” of discussion as for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">example, in the manner in which discussion is “Summarized” or in how<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discussion is channeled into certain directions through the design of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a pattern of “Forums”). Surely you agree that full<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">such possible bias./*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discussion.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above/*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*//*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1net, by the beginning of March. 1net is not in any way transmitting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">or filtering this input (nor should it).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">substantive and significant role as “Summarizing” and “framing through<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Forums” certain inputs into this process and it is in this that I am<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">suggesting the requirement for transparency /*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">All stakeholder groups are in this together. We want an Internet that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">outright capture by any sectoral interest.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">process to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">within stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. /*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*//*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">start off in the process with more influence and resources than others<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and thus (to go back to Anne’s question where all of this started)<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">among the greatest tools to ensure against such “capture by any<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">sectoral interest” is full transparency and accountability through<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">appropriate and inclusive structures—which is what I would think we<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">would all be striving for. /*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*//*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">collations, and we won’t get those solutions unless we come up with<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">good ideas and discuss/debate them.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] agreed/*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*//*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Negativity really does’;t help.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">reasonable disclosure/transparency. This only leads to further<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes that you are<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">pointing to./*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*//*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to ensure that it is not, as the “agora*” started out i.e. a place<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">where “/*free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">or council” */but rather is, as it later became,/* “a marketplace<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their goods */(MG: “and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ideas”) and the best way to ensure that the agora is the latter and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not the former, is full transparency as to processes and inputs. /*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*//*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">who is as you say “/* not one of the directly responsible parties for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1net” */and not from 1Net itself, who could as I’ve said repeatedly<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">end this discussion once and for all by spending no more than one or<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">two hours in responding to a set of questions which any “public” and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">publically accountable process would find completely normal and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my auditor’s hat) suggests<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that perhaps there is something to hide which the responsible parties<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">are unwilling to disclose./*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/Mike/*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">George<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*/*/* */http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora/*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">> I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">support its application in the concrete; talking about the application<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">CS activities and outputs.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. This is the absolute<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">public policy space.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">> Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">> It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">“Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">least a certain degree of internal transparency.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">> If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">> M<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><<trimmed>><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>