<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18943"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=845291515-21082010>Thanks
Jefsey,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=845291515-21082010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=845291515-21082010>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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=845291515-21082010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=845291515-21082010>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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=845291515-21082010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=845291515-21082010>Also, the technical community too often fails to
articulate a recognition that technical advance results in changed
<EM>possibiities</EM> not <EM>inevitabilities;</EM> or carry through
with CS's public interest mission in helping to
define the legal and normative conditions within which those
possibilities become realities.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=845291515-21082010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=845291515-21082010>Mike</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=845291515-21082010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=845291515-21082010>(Blogging at <A
href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com">http://gurstein.wordpress.com</A>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> JFC Morfin
[mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, August 21, 2010 3:37
AM<BR><B>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein;
governance@lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm';
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [governance]
multistakeholderism<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>At 17:28 19/08/2010, Michael Gurstein
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>Jefsey,<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>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> <BR><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>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> <BR><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2>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>Dear Michael,<BR><BR>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>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>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>* "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>* "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>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>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>Sorry to be upset, but sometimes it does
some good and may help :-) This is my freedom of technical speach
!<BR><BR>Best <BR><BR>jfc <BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><BR><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>Tks,<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>Mike<BR></FONT>
<DL>
<DD><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR>
<DD>From:</B> jefsey [<A href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com</A>] <BR>
<DD>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:57 AM<BR>
<DD>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm;
governance@lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein<BR>
<DD>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] multistakeholderism<BR><BR></FONT>
<DD>At 05:05 19/08/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="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.</DD></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<DD>Interesting debate. However, I do not want to harp on that too
much, but democracy seems to be an outdated concept</B> 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 </B>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><BR>
<DD>The WSIS offered a panel of different, and probably prophetic,
insights:<BR><BR>
<DD>- individual people centrism<BR><BR></B>
<DD>- dynamic coalitions</B>: everyone can join/quit them to
promote/defend a position<BR><BR>
<DD>- enhanced cooperations </B>(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</B> becoming the third founding
principle (through the IDNA2008 illustration) of the Internet architecture
(after the principle of adaptability</B> as a result of the principle of
permanent change - RFC 1958; and the principle of simplicity</B> - RFC
3439).<BR><BR>
<DD>- multistakeholderism</B>. However, in mainly quoting the governance
regalian space</B>, civil society</B>, private sector,</B> and
international bodies, they overlooked three key missing stakeholder
classes: money</B>, users,</B> and adminance</B>. <BR><BR>
<DD>--- Adminance</B> is what provides its technical soil to Governance
(standards, operations, structures, training, maintenance, etc.). <BR>
<DD>--- Users</B> are the people who are the center of the whole thing
(far away from CS, which deals with principles, while Users deal with
reality). <BR>
<DD>--- Money </B>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><BR>
<DD>- the IGF decision making tool</B>. 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 </B>(with voted motions influenced by lobbies and sponsors),
but rather a place for "concertation</B>" (French/EU meaning), i.e. where
everyone </B>can come to a better, mutually informed, personal
</B>decision.<BR><BR>
<DD>In such a system, stability can only proceed from what Buckminster
Fuller called "tensegrity</B>" (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><BR>
<DD>jfc<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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>).<BR><BR>
<DD>With that out of the way, I'll re-lurk and leave you all to continue
these very productive and interesting
discussions.</DD></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DD></DL><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<BR> governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>To be removed
from the list, send any message to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR><BR>For all list information and
functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
eudora="autourl">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR><BR>Translate
this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
eudora="autourl">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>