<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Tks Riaz,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>A couple of comments in return…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> Riaz K Tayob [mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 29, 2013 2:44 PM<br><b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] To Start to Answer Avri's Question: The Technical Community as "Steward" of the Internet<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>Mike<br><br>Thanks for these well considered insights.<br><br>2 things, and a bit.<br><br>Luxury & Innovation<br>In Capitalist innovation dynamics, luxury has historically played a key role. So on the technical mission, there is need to consider the market and social, and realist, dynamics, of what these groups do. In other words, great leeway is needed in some sense. But in order to do this, as much is novel and path dependent, the institutional framework that makes this happen is critical to success, a more pragmatic if it ain't broke than we are used too ;) For the techies it <i>is</i> more than just a possessiveness of their area of expertise, perhaps it is a price paid for specialisation. While design is typically in the creators hand, we do know that Microsoft (ab)used its Windows market dominance and integrated Internet Explorer into its operating system design (after Bill reportedly did not anticipate the growth of the net,was laggard on browsers), even though other technical options were imminently possible, and earned some anti-trust ire for it. So imho there is a need for luxury, with balance with innovation dynamics as competition authorities already know, but they too are permissive in some sense.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal> <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] I guess what I was referring to/attempting to invoke was the technical community's "higher angels"… we all know about the other (MS etc.) stuff, but as with for example, the debate around nuclear weapons a significant strand of the technical community (who were responsible for the research involved in the development of nuclear weapons) argued for the need for the development of nuclear energy in the public interest; and while they didn't prevail at the time--they were in the midst of (another?) Cold War--the public articulation of their stance was and remains a constant and very important theme in those discussions. A clear statement not only about the technical responsibility of the technical community (as per the documents that Roland pointed us to), but also about the broader social/public responsibility would I think be very significant as background to the emerging discussions around EC and other similar global Internet policy areas</span></i></b><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>Institutional<br>JK Galbraith argued that what made the economic system so effective was to get people into a firm to cooperate. Entrepreneurially coordinating inputs of various skills (finance, marketing, sales design, engineering, info sys etc) so as to produce outcomes equivalent to what in earlier years individual geniuses like Edison did. Most things are governance by committee. Having all the <i>elements</i> present made the process more robust. The nub of your point for me points to, by <i>restricting the skill</i>s brought to bear on the project <i>it increases the risks </i>to success, So from a purely procedural point of view tendencies to "restriction" is worrying.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] Yes, and that was precisely the point of my, dare I say, somewhat quizotic initiative vis a vis the T/A selection process. I feel no embarrassment at presenting myself as a technical expert adding some necessary "variety" and "skills" (as per your comment) to the mix. The WG is, I think impoverished by not having a broader range of skills and experience that it can draw upon including those that would come from the community informatics community.</span></i></b><br><br>Of course if one is of the persuasion that there is clear boundary between technical and public interest, then this issue is moot (but with increasing complexity even ICANN is dealing more with Intellectual Property, something we have been advised here has naught to do with IG). <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] A distinction between the technical and the public interest is possible only for those who are completely wedded to a status quo where no public interest perspective is being articulated and, not being articulated, is not being pursued ie. a situation where might inevitably makes right since what we are left with is a more or less completely unregulated Hobbesian state of nature i.e. a war of each against all.</span></i></b><br><br>If, howver, one does feel there is a regulatory function in <i>some </i>of the technical (as Lessig, who has received contemptuous consideration on this list, I think) then the lack of a procedural measure smacks of something rather unbecoming. As it is not a typical technical process, not even of the private sector (given the market orientation of some of the views). Of course if one believes that technology is/can be a social construction (e.g. why we don't just leave nuclear power stations to be run by Homer Simpson) then the imperative for this procedure is rather important, as you similarly recommend.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] Yes, of course, the technical is political--only the truly naïve or the self-delusional would disagree… But it serves the status quo interests extremely well to argue against this position since the values being hardwired in as technically "neutral" inevitably (and in this instance, it is hoped, invisibly) favour certain commercial and national interests over others and most importantly without consideration even being given to the broader global public interest, i.e. an Internet for All.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><b><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>Riaz<br>On 2013/03/29 09:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>I must say that I'm disappointed, not with not being selected for the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Working Group, that's the way those things go, but rather at the way in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>which the discussion went, or rather didn't go.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I'm disappointed at the simple lack of courtesy on the part of the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>representative of the T/A group in not acknowledging and apologizing for the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>incorrect personal attack that was made on me in the course of the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>discussion.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>But mostly I'm disappointed in the lack of any clear articulation of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>precisely what the "Technical Community" sees as their role and values in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>relation to "Enhanced Cooperation" or in other terms the institutional<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>architecture for the "governance" of the Internet.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Since they (or at least their self-selected spokespersons on this list) seem<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>unable or unwilling to go beyond a pingpong lack of diplomacy perhaps I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>could suggest that the role of the larger "Technical Community" is in fact,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a necessary and very significant one which I personally would support as a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>necessary contribution to any discussion of Enhanced Cooperation--that is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they are the "stewards" of the effective functioning and future deployment<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of the Internet in support of the myriad functions and services now being<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>built on that platform. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I personally recognize the need for such "stewards"--every one of the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>functions that I have undertaken on the Internet have had at some point and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to a greater or lesser extent, to rely on the skill and experience of such<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>stewards to ensure that I was able to do on the Internet what I wanted to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>do.... And I'm quite sure that we have all had the exact same experience.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>And similarly I have on occasion been warned off from doing things that I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wanted to do because it wasn't in the longer term technical interests of the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>overall mission that I was attempting to pursue.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>But there is the "rub"... So long as it was clear that the ultimate arbiter<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in any decision concerning technical areas, as for other areas, was the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>longer term organizational/social "mission" then things were fine, but<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>if/when there was a dispute between let's say technical efficiency or<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>technical elegance and getting down and dirty and accomplishing the mission<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that we had agreed was the central focus of our activities then the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>technical stewards needed to give way and conform to the overall<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>organizational/social mission that we were pursuing.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>What I was hoping to hear from the "technical community" acting as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"stewards" of the overall technical integrity of the Internet was some<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>statement concerning the overall mission for the Internet that they saw as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>being what provided the direction for their technical stewardship. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Simply arguing for technical efficiency or effectiveness as a goal is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>clearly insufficient in such a significant area of public impact as the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Internet. Nor, dare I say, is it sufficient to simply say the mission will<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>arise out of the interplay of "competitive" commercial (or multistakeholder<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>or other) forces given the clear historical and resource imbalances that the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>various parties are bringing to those interactions. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>What I would have expected/hoped to hear, and this would have provided a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>very interesting and useful basis for the discussion that Avri is asking<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for, is that the Technical Community are acting in their technical capacity<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>as "stewards" of the Internet in support of the global public good i.e. an<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Internet that serves the interests of us all, the Internet that we want to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>build for ourselves and our children.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>That would and hopefully still can provide the basis for a very useful<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>discussion/process where we as a community and including many many others<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>can work together to attempt to define and detail what we mean by the global<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>public good in this sphere as we have in other areas, and how that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>definition and detailing of the global public good/the Internet for us all<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>can best be realized both at the level of the technical platform as well as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in the range of activities and services that are being built on top of this<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>platform.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Mike<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>[<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:58 AM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: IGC<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on Enhanced Cooperation<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>hi,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I am confused. What windy rat hole have we gotten ourselves stuck in? And<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>while comparative subsidiarity is interesting, I do not see the positive<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>result all of this will have.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>choice, what is it this group thinks is important? I would really like to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>avri<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>PS: And if that topic isn't appealing, how about: what do people think<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>about the 200+ ideas for workshops submitted to the IGF? What should the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>MAG do next? I am sure that those we have put forward for the MAG and the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>MAG-to-be, would be interested in our views.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>