<html>
<body>
At 17:31 21/08/2010, Michael Gurstein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#0000FF">
Thanks Jefsey,<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">I very much agree with what I understand to
be your overall point that more effort (and research funding) should go
into defining and articulating the public interest at the technical as
well as the normative level.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">A frequent problem is that few of the
technical issues are made accessible to the non-technical community by
those who have an appropriate technical
understanding.</font></blockquote><br>
This is like everything in life: you have to fight for it. This is my
fight and work for the last 35 years. I obtained the IUCG
(<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki" eudora="autourl">http://iucg.org/wiki</a>
). Everyone is welcome. The IETF Chair is on the list. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#0000FF">
Also, the technical community too often fails to articulate a
recognition that technical advance results in changed <i>possibiities</i>
not <i>inevitabilities;</i> or carry through with CS's public interest
mission in helping to define the legal and normative conditions within
which those possibilities become realities.</font></blockquote><br>
The technical community considers: the need, the technical solution, a
culture (*), the response of the market (supposed to be the users). No
one from the CS spend time on researching and explaining the need. They
discuss the use, not what is to be built.<br><br>
We are in full agreement, but we need people to carry the job. More lead
users than lawyers. Nothing against lawyers, but the machines' code is
not voted.<br><br>
(*) RFC 3935, the mission of the IETF: <br><br>
- " The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.
The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical
and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and
manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better.
" This is clear: people have to serve the Internet so it works
better for all, i.e. stakeholders.<br><br>
- " The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF.
We want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our
commitment to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts
such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of
resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of the
IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the
technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that we
choose to create". The true problem is that these values today do
not match HR. This _is_ what to be solved in priority because usage
necessarily roots in technology. One do not ask Governance to develop
solutions, but to share in Adminance to share in speciftying them, in
controlling their development, in validating the result. As does anyone
who order a software development. If industry handled software engineers
the way SC does, there is a long time Industry would be dead! <br><br>
Best<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">Best.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">Mike<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">(Blogging at
<a href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com">http://gurstein.wordpress.com</a>
<br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>From:</b> JFC Morfin
[<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 21, 2010 3:37 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein;
governance@lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm';
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] multistakeholderism<br><br>
</font>
<dd>At 17:28 19/08/2010, Michael Gurstein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd><font size=2 color="#0000FF">Jefsey,<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2 color="#0000FF">While your note below seems to be making
some useful points it demonstrates to my mind precisely one of the major
hesitations I have concerning shifting away from existing approaches to
democracy/the governance of governance into any of the alternatives
currently being discussed in forums such as this one, especially where
the main argument is that somehow the technology is forcing these changes
upon us.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2 color="#0000FF">We are having a discussion on quite
fundamental issues of very broad significance and relevance and in the
midst of this we are bombarded with technical jargon, references to
highly specialized and even arcane areas of expertise and documentation,
and undefined acronyms and neologisms and we are expected that somehow we
are to take this seriously as arguments of more general import. (Or what
would be even worse, nod sagely as though we understood and passed these
along as useful contributions.)<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2 color="#0000FF">If you can translate what you have below
into any of the official languages of the UN it would I think be a useful
place to begin.</font></blockquote><br>
<dd>Dear Michael,<br><br>
<dd>I am sorry but this is precisely what I did. None of the words I used
it technical. They either belong to common language, to WSIS
declarations, or to the desired interfacing between users and engineers
and they are then introduced. The real issue we have, IMHO, is that we
refuse to use our own words in the meaning we defined and try to keep
using outdated perceptions we consensually declared as obsolete years
ago. re-Doing Geneva/Tunis preparations again and again.<br><br>
<dd>I have the same problem with the technical community where some hate
me and others support me. I am the facilitator of the iucg@ietf.org
mailing list (Internet Users Contributing Group). A place for users to
discuss this same problem: how to make engineers understand us (something
they do want, but then we are to do our home work and use their precise
terms because they means something precise, as much as our own precise
terms). What I observe is that none of the so called CS attends that
list. Hence my question what is CS in the opinion of the people of this
list? Why is CS not supporting the WSIS recommendations? Why is this list
not refering to the IGF mission to deal with the emergences of the
Internet and Information Society? Why is not using the words of the WSIS
its people seem to ignore? Is it a place to vote about votes, to talk, to
work, to build, to protect people?<br><br>
<dd>Now, your concern irt. technology is something you share in common to
the CS/Gov/mostPrivate because the WSIS failed to see and document it.
The technology IS forcing the changes upon you, period. The fault of the
WSIS was to not identify the Adminance mechanisms and explain how
Governance should participate in order to force the people's
specifications on the technology. This is what the IUCG tries to
introduced aside of the IAB (IETF Internet Architecture Board) which up
to now has assumed the plannification of the technology evolution,
without any user/society/gov control while it is sponsored by the private
sector. Here is what IAB says (RFC 3869) on the matter: <br><br>
<dd>* "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial
funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the
future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In
addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source
can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or
against the development of open standards, or taking varying
degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other
traffic on the Internet." (NB. This is what ISOC now SELL!!!
infuence on the technology to its platinum sponsors)<br><br>
<dd>* "The IAB believes that it would be helpful for
governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding
of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and
to sustain these funding levels going forward."<br><br>
<dd>This was six years ago. CS, Govs and Tunis failed to answer that.
They said: "Google", so many joined Google. The only existing
answer I know off is the IUCG where self-sustained non-commercials lead
users carry research and standardisation action towards a people's
internet (cf. "people centric - à caratère humain - centrada en la
personna" (WSIS)). Who knows on this list that they have blocked
cultural filtering and changed the very concept of the internet,
introducing the principle of subsidiarity in its archtitecture and are
fighting hard for the IETF to understand the implications of what they
have consensually approved and now published. <br><br>
<dd>I am afraid that a few people meeting on a mailing list or in a few
fora, even once a year paid by UN, ICANN, etc, having their own outdated
view of effective forces (I am sorry to be harsh but I do think it is
true - look at the way ALAC is not considered at ICANN, and global
members despised at ISOC, not even being represented at the BoT) can
achieve much. Where are your guns? How do you want to impose anything to
people who do have guns, billions of dollars, the technology, paying
consumers and spend their time at social engineering? There is only one
source of power they do not have: technical innovation supported by users
adhesion. Since you disregard technical issues, any form of social
advancement, and users/people/political/consumer/cultural organizations,
I do not really see what you may hope except to die for the glory as did
the GA, IDNO, icannatlarge, ALAC. Do you realise that your Travel
expenses to IGF meetings only would permit us to drastically change the
Internet technology and make it fit what you try to vote for.<br><br>
<dd>Sorry to be upset, but sometimes it does some good and may help :-)
This is my freedom of technical speach !<br><br>
<dd>Best <br><br>
<dd>jfc <br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd><font size=2 color="#0000FF">Tks,<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2 color="#0000FF">Mike</font>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----
<dd>From: jefsey [
<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com</a>]
<dd>Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:57 AM
<dd>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm;
governance@lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
<dd>Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism<br><br>
</font>
<dd>At 05:05 19/08/2010, Jeremy Malcolm
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>I haven't been participating in this discussion, because I don't want
to stick too much of an oar in while I'm co-coordinator, but I've been
avidly reading and there have been many pearls of wisdom exchanged.
I'll just pipe up briefly here to add one short +1 to this, and to make a
couple of related remarks.</blockquote>
<dd>Interesting debate. However, I do not want to harp on that too
much, but democracy seems to be an outdated concept that is related to a
period of prevalent dialogue calling for an elected chain of dialogue
from bottom to top. With the demographic growth, and its implied direct
horizontal relational consequences, we entered a polylogue period (people
talking to everyone on behalf of everyone), and to facilitate this
polylogue we created the Internet. This is new, and we are learning from
experience as to what polycracy may mean and how one "governs",
together with each other, a 7++ billion multicolor, multicultural,
multilingual, multifaith, etc. States UN, in turn resulting from and
dependent on a developing set of new technologies.<br>
<dd>The WSIS offered a panel of different, and probably prophetic,
insights:<br>
<dd>- individual people centrism<br>
<dd>- dynamic coalitions: everyone can join/quit them to promote/defend a
position<br>
<dd>- enhanced cooperations (to be worked on) to carry common tasks -
where the current IESOCANN failure is, due to the still prevailing ICANN
"Class IN" centrism make-believe. However, the enhanced
cooperation mechanism is something that we will probably have to consider
soon enough due to the principle of subsidiarity becoming the third
founding principle (through the IDNA2008 illustration) of the Internet
architecture (after the principle of adaptability as a result of the
principle of permanent change - RFC 1958; and the principle of simplicity
- RFC 3439).<br>
<dd>- multistakeholderism. However, in mainly quoting the governance
regalian space, civil society, private sector, and international bodies,
they overlooked three key missing stakeholder classes: money, users, and
adminance. <br>
<dd>--- Adminance is what provides its technical soil to Governance
(standards, operations, structures, training, maintenance, etc.).
<dd>--- Users are the people who are the center of the whole thing (far
away from CS, which deals with principles, while Users deal with
reality).
<dd>--- Money is still currently a decimal non-digital transaction memory
tool that is devastated by the emergence of the digital ecosystem and is
totally out of tune with it, and with the emerging polycracy (hence the
current financial crisis and corruption wave [Russia: 50% of the GNP]).
<br>
<dd>- the IGF decision making tool. Certainly the least understood
proposition to date. While the main concept is still "coordinated
cooperation" (by US, ICANN, UN...), the IGF is NOT a place for
coordination (with voted motions influenced by lobbies and sponsors), but
rather a place for "concertation" (French/EU meaning), i.e.
where everyone can come to a better, mutually informed, personal
decision.
<dd>In such a system, stability can only proceed from what Buckminster
Fuller called "tensegrity" (integrity based on a balance
between tension and compression components).,This is probably a notion
that we should explore better as a multilateral continuation of the
East/West Cold War coexistence and further US globalization attempt.<br>
<dd>jfc<br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>I agree that civil society must promote the adoption of a framework
for further democratising global governance (for which
"multistakeholderism" is just a convenient and slightly
inaccurate shorthand), beyond the Internet governance regime, in which it
is really just a test-bed.<br>
<dd>Agreeing with Wolfgang, and disagreeing slightly with Parminder, for
me the inclusion of the three stakeholder groups in multi-stakeholder
structures has never been about increasing the power of the private
sector, but on the contary, balancing it. The private sector
already has the ear of governments, and by promoting multistakeholderism
we ask nothing more than for the same privilege.<br>
<dd>In Internet governance, we already have a good basic starting point
for such a framework in the WSIS process criteria and the IGF's
(unfulfilled) mandate to assess the performance of Internet governance
institutions against these criteria. Beyond that, the framework is
being taken forward by efforts like the UNECE/CoE/APC Code of Good
Practice on information, participation and transparency in Internet
governance (already referred to in this thread,
http://www.intgovcode.org/).<br>
<dd>Other regimes are very far behind. I have just written a paper
in which I argue for the development of global principles for governance
of the global regime on intellectual property, in view of the threat of
ACTA, whose negotiators not only flout basic principles of democratic
global governance, but also feign ignorance that they are doing so.
One of our workshops (Parminder's) will deal with this in detail
too.<br>
<dd>My fear, though, is that whilst Internet governance is, as I've said,
just a test-bed for multistakeholderism, if it doesn't soon prove its
value then it will not only have been born there but will die there as
well, and end up with no more currency in global governance discourse
than communism or anarchism.<br>
<dd>In this respect I respectfully can't agree with Ginger (another
reason I'm piping up now!) about the need to constrain the IGF from
producing "results". The fears about "the pressure
of negotiations or the need for an agreed-upon end 'result'", whilst
not unfounded, should be systematically confronted and addressed rather
than fatalistically accepted.<br>
<dd>It is more important that multi-stakeholderism works (and for us, not
just for the incumbent powers) rather than that it doesn't rock the
boat. And by "works", we mean that we need to have an
appreciable impact on shaping actual public policy decisions at a global
level. At the moment, we quite simply don't (research presented at
last year's workshop on "Identifying the Impact" demonstrated
this, and the UNSG's recent remarks also acknowledge it). <br>
<dd>In fact there are many ways in which the power of governments and
other powerful actors to screw up the process can be defused. I've
written about these ad nauseum and I don't intend to do so again here,
but read again the summary I wrote for the IGP for a refresher if you are
interested (
<a href="http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf</a>).
<dd>With that out of the way, I'll re-lurk and leave you all to continue
these very productive and interesting discussions.</blockquote>
</dl><br>
<dd>____________________________________________________________<br>
<dd>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<dd> governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<dd>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<dd>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br><br>
<dd>For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>
<dd>Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>