<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [governance] Design framework for
IGF</title></head><body>
<div>Thanks much for next steps in the thinking. (Have been in
the belly of the consultation - now am coughed up, to keyboard another
day ... sorry for the hiatus, in response.)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>A few next next thoughts below. In general, this is a
subject on which my first paper goes back over fifteen years now.
The organizing rubric has been 'standardization and innovation.'
Though order and chaos is more general, and there is a remarkably wide
range of applications.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>However: Concatenated community structure - but especially
its operation and evolution, via shared protocols - lie, really, at
the heart of any useful understanding. Dynamic change is the
essence - in a real sense there is not a static starting point and
therefore not a static representation. And some will of course
also point at the Santa Fe Institute, et al. But all that goes
to some detail - which is entirely beyond our more practical design
purposes here.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 12:35 AM +0100 2/16/06, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Dear David,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Interesting contribution. A few general
remarks.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>1) yes, fleshing out differences
explictely early on in processes usually allows for better
communications later on. Diplomatic discourse works a lot in the
implicit, making understanding each other's positions more
difficult.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>A fundamental problem, certainly revealed in the five or so years
of WSIS, as only one for instance - we all, including diplomats, need
to be able to get to what matters, so we can work on it. As
Keynes said, in the long run we are dead. We only have so much
time to get results; we need to get on with it rather than
temporize.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>You begin, I think, to lay out how that might be done -
diplomatically:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Initial stage in dealing with an
"issue of common concern or interest" is to get all
stakeholders to descibe their understanding of the issue from their
"point of view" (litterally from where they observe it).
This does not require them to relinquish whatever opinion they have
but allows them to integrate opther elements of a more global picture.
Same object from a different angle, or the traditional five blind men
and the elephant story.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>This initial process does provide a more
complete common picture of what an issue is about, and what the
respective positions of actors are. This provides a better starting
point for further discussions.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>For me anyway, you begin to describe how incommensurable
frameworks may be brought to the surface reasonably expeditiously.
We need to focus on what otherwise otherwise would be implicit and
invisible conceptual frameworks - rather than struggle over surface
tussles.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>When we get the frameworks out, we can see where the immediate
disagreements come from. That does not make a bridge. But
it makes clear where a bridge must be built, if there ever is to be
resolution. Otherwise, the struggle goes on endlessly, with no
real prospect for resolution.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> 2) Dialectic process. The
alternance between standardization and innovation phases is a dynamic
mechanism worth refering to. In governance, you could also consider a
combination of two notions : "initiation" and
"validation".</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>An broad right of initiative is
essential to put issues early on the agenda. The progressive
constitution of interest groups, then more and more formal
working groups and drafting groups (as need arises) leads to a second
phase of validation / adoption of the results (report, recommendation,
regimes proposals, etc...) before they are implemented by the
concerned stakehollders.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Indeed.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As said, the papers go into some detail, including for instance
how there is a switchover, between experimentation and consensus
formation. Your initiation and validation are, for me, helpful
alternate formulations.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>This "organic", more
biological-like approach (akin to the activation-repression of genes
expression) contrasts with the mechanical, "checks and balances"
approach of most existing governance mechanisms, particularly
representative democracy.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>In my view, a most especially important line of thought.
Community processes are what human beings respond to. They are
what determine choices, by and large. Only if voting procedures,
as just one for instance, reinforce such, will they likely be useful
in any long run. (World news just now is all too confirming of
problems with voting, if taken in a vacuum.)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Comparisons with the biological is one of the areas for
interesting debate.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>3) Starting up the process. In line with
your comments on plenary and program committee (informal/formal), the
first meeting in Athens is an opportunity to test and
implement very open modalities and to later formalize them
into simple protocols; the next meeting and possible
intermediary ones relaunching the cycle in order for the Forum
to progressively get its final shape.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The process here could be the
opposite of the lengthy (multi-year) diplomatic negociations before
the establishment of new international organizations. The iterative
approach here would be : move forward, test modalities,
identify the best ones, formalize them somewhat, then repeat the
process....</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>If we should be so fortunate to - be able to - 'learn
progressively,' what I take to be the essence of the community process
...</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> 4) Microcosm. All these concepts
are somewhat fractal, self-referential and, yes, self-similar at
different scales.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>The very essence of concatenation.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>We are establishing a framework defining
how activities can be set up, and the establishment of this framework
is, in itself, one of the activities it should allow.</blockquote>
<div><br>
Indeed.<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> Traditional political
science makes a clear distinction between the constitutional
phase determining an institutional framework and the normal
legislative activities taking place afterwards within it. The US
constitution is 200 years old</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>A mere infant, by comparison with 5,000+ year-old civilizations
around the world - and all the cumulated learning (and ossification
...) those multi-millennial histories represent.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>and the rare amendments are not adopted
through the normal legislative process, but through a special
procedure.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>But here, the initial definition
of the framework (how the Forum is composed and will function)
and its modification on an ongoing basis will be obtained
through the normal procedures that the forum will use for its
day-to-day activities. This should be a typical example of a
bootstrapping, self-establishing process, without a clear
Constitutional phase.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I hope these comments will not look too
abstract. And for the moment, we will have to focus on the concrete
aspects of how to set up the first meeting. But thanks for giving me
the opportunity to put down some thoughts I have carried for a
long time.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Best</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Bertrand</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>One of the greatest challenges is to mix [fundamental]
ideas-that-matter with practical choices for today - the two are often
at opposite ends of the scale. We face just that challenge, in
trying to bring together the fruits of research and the wisdom of
practical experience - in IGF.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(For reference, in the paper index at
http://www.davidallen.org/pages/paprindx.html a reasonably full piece
is labeled Liberal Evolution. Convoluted, I am afraid, to serve
a particular purpose for that paper. Paper labeled Dynamic
Policy, published in Sweden, does some of the same, though earlier.
The original, years ago, is labeled Innovation and Standardization,
the version at the bottom of the page. Nor have I had the time
to write the comprehensive paper I would like, for today's debate
milieu. Mainly,<i> none of this is necessary for our practical
design purposes</i> - only of concern for those who might like to take
the paradigm further, or try to debunk it. And so why I expect
further on this to be omitted / to be taken up offline ...</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(So, everyone else should ignore ...)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>David</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On 2/15/06,<b> David Allen</b> <<a
href="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu"
>David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote>For those who may be interested, I have posted a piece on
a framework<br>
for design of IGF.<br>
<br>
<a
href="http://davidallen.org/papers/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf"
>http://davidallen.org/papers/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
(If a letter size version is helpful, substitute LTR for A4 in the
URL.)<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>David</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>