<html>
<body>
Dear Anriette, Bertrand, Daniel, Norbert, and Garth,<br><br>
This thread has become very interesting and "pre-fundamental".
This mail tries to synthetize our various inputs into a coherent
evaluation/proposition. Sorry for it to make a long mail, but this is due
to your different valuable contributions and their articulation.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000"><b>At
12:31 14/08/2013, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:<br>
</b>Boy, do I like a good controversy: it is the only way to have all
sides of an issue, to think deeply, to be forced to reevaluate your own
assumptions and prejudices, to potentially reframe a debate (as we are
doing here) and move towards a solution. This is what Parliaments were
established for: light through debate.</font><font color="#C00000">
</blockquote><br>
</font>Also for voted upon decisions. And before that, to votes on the
way to vote decisions.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000">The IGC
Charter says:
<dl>
<dd>The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a
forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil
society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus
intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share
opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and
to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the
utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant
policy processes.</font></blockquote>
</dl>It also says:
<dl>
<dd>The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a
forum for discussion, <b>advocacy</b>, <b>action</b>, and for
representation of <b>civil society contributions</b> in Internet
governance <b>processes</b>. The caucus intends to provide an open and
effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and
expertise on Internet governance issues, and <b>to provide a mechanism
for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of
Civil Society </b>(CS) and the IGC in relevant policy
processe<font color="#C00000">s. </font>
</dl>From this I understand that people want to talk in a forum about the
way to proceed with Enhanced Cooperations, and that the role of the IGC
is to provide such a forum, i.e. a mutual help point of entry into the
IGF for civil society members in order to enhance the cooperation as
regards what it may bring to the Internet utilization process.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000">ICANN is
complex machinery and still a laboratory of multi-stakeholder governance.
Issues like the risk of capture(s) by one constituency or another, the
tension between a corporate vs. a regulatory role, or how to ensure the
defense of the global public interest, just to name a few, are necessary,
substantial debates. We need to have
them.</font></blockquote><font color="#C00000"><br>
</font>ICANN is also a complicated enhanced cooperation machinery
prototype, experimenting a practical way to balance the four reference
poles of a global governance under the leading influence of a national
unballancing tutor. We needed the tutor; we have to get rid of the
unballance, but when/how?<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000">Actually,
the launch of the new gTLD program will require a deep examination of its
impact on the structures and processes of ICANN. Whether we call it ICANN
3.0 or not does not matter. What will be needed is engagement in the
discussion that will necessarily take place in the coming
years.</font></blockquote><font color="#C00000"> <br>
</font>The vTLD (vanity TLD) program is not coherent with the openness of
the naming space that we established in 1978 and globally consensually
agreed on in 1984 (RFC 920) by Jon Postel, the IETF documented in RFCs,
Vint Cerf confirmed in 2000, and IDNA2008 RFCs, and what ICANN pleads for
in its ICP3 policy. We all need the multinational, multilingual,
multiledger, multilayer digital name space (ML-DNS) to be stable and well
behaved. <br><br>
This is why we welcome the current technical respite that we currently
have, thanks to China/i-DNs' sense of responsibilities and precaution (I
am still looking for an appropriate modern word for the greek
"philia"). However, I am afraid ICANN is not suitably taking
advantage of this period, which could come to a close in the year to come
(due to software and architectonic progress and evolutions). This is why
I fear that the "discussion that will necessarily take place in the
coming years" will turn out to be more of a cyberwar leading to an
uncertain eventual negentropy and in the meanwhile to real and possibly
economically devastating entropy. <br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000"><b>At
14:43 14/08/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote:<br>
</b>May be we should consider either create a new forum inviting many
players who are active in our field (and doing advocacy on their own) or
simply revive the existing Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space
<plenary@wsis-cs.org> which should have been the appropriate place
for that purpose.<br><br>
In the multi-stakeholder game (nothing pejorative in that word, I use it
in the mathematical sense of game theory) the other groups (governments
and private sector) have their own mechanism of coordination outside
where we are not present and this is perfectly fair. Civil society also
needs to be better coordinated in the inner circle and at this time we
lack such mechanism. In game theory the winner is the one which strategy
is unknown to the other players: we have implicitly accepted to discuss
publically our strategy here and this is not good for our chance of
pushing our consensuated visions.<br><br>
My proposition and action is based on the same analysis and on the
observation of the three other groups.</font> </blockquote><br>
1. International organizations are proceeding on the language plane.
Norbert reported it for the "Cloud", but this is true in other
domains. Their role is a global concordance for compatibility,
interoperations, and interintelligibility. The problem raised by the lack
of civil society cooperation in their normative effort is that their
vocabulary and its underlying concepts will result in a biased by
solutions pact to the detriment of use.<br><br>
2. Governments are proceeding through the ITU normative forum and the
global treaty on telecommunications. With a well-organized debate,
meeting, and concluding pact.<br><br>
3. The private sector also reached a paradigmatically normative pact and
an organization (named "OpenStand" -
<font color="#0000FF"><u>http://open-stand.org</u></font>) embodied
through RFC 6852 that associates the private stakeholders around ISOC
(network engineering), W3C (business proposition) and IEEE (computer
engineering).<br><br>
4. For the time being, ICANN stays in between Governments due to its de
facto affiliation with the US Government and intergovernmental philia,
and its self-sustenance protection policy. This teaches us a lot, but we
cannot copy this model at this stage by lack of budgetary sources or in
the fear to unsettle the cyberspace.<br><br>
Civil society must organize itself in taking advantage from these
experiments. This means that we must take control of a key something that
we can master with a heterarchic and fuzzy management through truly
enhanced cooperation where we will propose Govs, Intl.orgs, and Corps to
join us. <br><br>
- Governments have sovereignty and power - they use treaties.<br>
- Private sector has standards and money - they have named their
pact “OpenStand”.<br>
- Intl.orgs have documentation and ties - they call these “norms”.<br>
- We have information and use - I call our capability in that are
“OpenUse” when dealing with OpenStand chairs. This is for this OpenUse
approach
(<a href="http://openuse.org/" eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>
http://openuse.org</a></u></font>) that I call for help after
having established an OpenUse technical liaison with the IETF through
IUCG@IETF.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000"><b>At
15:22 14/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:</b><br>
this would be a joint NomCom of civil society as a whole: Members of all
the various civil society organizations and networks would be invited to
volunteer for the NomCom, and a reasonably sized group from among these
volunteers would be randomly selected to form the NomCom. The NomCom
would constitute itself (it particular the NomCom chair would be elected
by the randomly selected members of the NomCom). For each selection task
within the remit of the NomCom, the NomCom would publish a call for
expressions of interest and then selecting a good civil society
representative or group of representatives (the NomCom members themselves
being not eligible).</font></blockquote><font color="#C00000"><br>
</font>+1. A CSnomcom is just a common service that is provided to the
organization of a group. If several organizations wish - for efficiency
sake - to be represented by a unique person, this is their choice. If
this choice turns out to be beneficial, next time others will
join.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000">Obviously
all of the steering groups etc. of these networks must be invited to
participate in the discussions around creating a Joint Civil Society
NomCom mechanism, or other credible mechanism that could serve the same
purpose.<br><br>
I however don't think that it is appropriate to restrict these
discussions only to people who are on some steering group. Therefore I'd
like to broadly circulate a call for expressions of interest for
participation in these discussions, in which everyone who is <br>
(1) experienced as a civil society participant in Internet governance
debates, and is<br>
(2) clearly primarily participating as a civil society person, with
reasonable independence from industry and government interests is invited
to also participate in these discussions on the basis of a simple
expression of interest.</font></blockquote><font color="#C00000"><br>
</font>+1. Just a remark: the term "dynamic coalition" has been
coined not to be specific to any form of coalition and organization by
individuals or groups. This should be respected as there are also other
forms of articulated relational spaces than the common steered networks
formula.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000">
Acknowledgement: This initiative is significantly inspired by Thomas
Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a while back to create a Joint Board for
selection tasks.</font></blockquote><font color="#C00000"><br>
</font>The process might be as touchy as the MAG selection process... But
it could start small and grow by positive reputation.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000"><b>At
16:47 14/08/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:</b><br>
Response from the Indonesian representative to my question made during
the MAG meeting about this high-level ministerial event is as
follows:</font></blockquote><font color="#C00000"><br>
</font>I note that the proposition was a "high level leaders
meeting" and it then becomes a “high level ministerial event”.
Therefore, it means it is hosted by governments. However, the terminology
has not been adapted to a partly claimed equal footing with business
sector and civil society.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000">- Will
start off with statements from each of the ministers present<br>
- This is followed by statements from leaders from business and
CS</font></blockquote><font color="#C00000"><br>
</font>I think it is time that we introduce a question about what a
leader is in the Internet Governance and for us to introduce the concept
of "NIL" Meetings. The NILs being the “Network influent level”.
Those who are denied to talk, and who can only do and pay.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000">if we want
the IGF to become more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from
IGF-linked processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to
events that are formally part of the main IGF? But high-level protocol is
a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with interactive
dialogue.</font></blockquote><font color="#C00000"><br>
</font>If we want interactive dialog among people who are not used to it,
it is up to us to organize it and make them participate in becoming the
common information media both in documenting their conclusions and in
publicly questioning them about the points they purposely or unwittingly
ignore, challenging these conclusions with those of other stakeholders,
including ours. They talk, we broadcast, archive, document. What realy
counts is not their rules, technology, agreements and norms but our
intelligent use of them and our best purchases and practices. <br><br>
This is the OpenUse attitude that I propose we all support . <br><br>
Now, let me finish with mentioning what you should all keep in mind. As a
typical representative of the non-funded civil society members, I see the
IGF as split into two: the TLLMand the others. The TLLM are the T&L
level members who can be invited (or participate in IETF or ISO
meetings). I must acknowledge that I am not very interested in TLLM
participation in HLLMs (T&L level members in High-Leader Level
Meetings). The cost of the T&L to Bali in order to attend the ethics
alibi meeting would permit Free Research and Development High Competence
Level Members of civil society to significantly upgrade the cyberspace
(may I just remind everyone that today’s Internet cyberspace has some
analogy with the deck of the SST(itanic)).<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000"><b>At
00:20 15/08/2013, Garth Graham wrote:<br>
</b>On the one hand, the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community
development recognized that WSIS would (as it did) fail to grasp the
nature of how societies and their technologies co-evolve. They
stayed away from WSIS. <br><br>
On the other hand, the agencies that saw community networking as a means
to the end of human rights, rather than an end in itself, trampled the
stewards of community use into the dust as they stampeded towards the
WSIS trough of resources. In large part, WSIS killed GCNP.<br>
<br>
I believe the nature of digital economy and society is revealed most
strongly through the emergent patterns of community online and daily life
online. That means the best way to evolve the Internet Governance
Ecosystem remains local, not global. It means the conscious neglect
of the experience of the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community
development inherent in those two examples was a mistake.<br>
<br>
Those stewards have not gone away. Every increase in bandwidth,
every decrease in bandwidth cost, every effort to locate control of
Internet access in the hands of community, increases their interstitial
strength and numbers. They are the early adopters of the phase
change in governance we are now experiencing, away from closed systems of
control and towards open complex adaptive systems that learn. Some
nation states, particularly those that recognize the importance of
digital inclusion, acknowledge their existence better than others.
But they are clearly not players who are active in our field, if that
field or space is defined as civil society.</font></blockquote><br>
This analysis sounds perfect to me, except on my one key point: what the
French word “concertation” or the old Greek word “philia” imply: may be
the portmanteau “coopetition” in English. This is <u>the key of our
complex world</u>: we are bound together, so if something is truly
good/bad for one it is holistically good/bad for all, all the way to the
whole universe (this is what a fractal universe means). <br><br>
Nothing new under the sun: we know what it implies. “Man is by nature a
social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not
accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is
something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the
common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore
does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” (Aristotle).
The 19th century mistake led to our paying for creating the sole
financial profit dedicated “Homo economicus”.<br><br>
This societality also means that our human decision margin in order to
influence complexity is <b><u>slim</u>. </b>Therefore<b>, </b>our
current time’s job is neither to choose between the tide of the
technological innovation and the wind of the societal evolution nor to
decide on a route for others, but to provide shipping (States,
Corporations, Organizations, and people in a people centered society)
with navigational help permitting one to go where one wants – otherwise,
we will all sinkin the cybertempest. Among these tools there are the
WSIS, IGF, RFCs, best practices, dynamic coalitions, enhanced
cooperations, multistakeholderism, e-sovereignty, e-empowerments,
Internet architecture, etc.etc. All of these comprise the digital
architectonic area. <br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000">I believe
that there has been a total breakdown of public trust in the structural
capacity of a triumvirate of government, business and civil society to
sustain a social contract. </font></blockquote><br>
Correct, in the cyberspace, at the speed we are going, we need a cyber
code, radars, adequate charts and referent frames, navigational aids,
etc. and mutual respect and civil friendship from others. This is like in
a car or on an airplane.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000">Changing
the concept of organization to self-organization will scale fractally
towards planetary responses that are sensible to anyone at any level,
without the need for the creation of monolithic and therefore very
dangerous global institutions</font></blockquote><br>
Garth, this is exactly what the WSIS did and what we should do. But we
read it first with our old glasses. Like the IETF did, and still partly
does with some RFCs. The RFC does not change, nor does the source code,
but the architectural or even architectonical perspective adapts.
We want to conduct fractality instead of influencing it. This is the
error. We want to rule the internet, instead of reaping the best
advantage from it. This cannot work: this is a layer violation. Too many
unordered parameters and interlinks. We have to learn.<br><br>
The problem with self-organization is that if you cannot moderate it
through adequate auto-catalysis, it then becomes critical.
Self-organization criticality (SOC) means that we humans do not scale to
the new level of complexity that we have reached. Then, the world takes
over (its automatic pilot is sometimes rude, as we experimented with WWII
or how we are currently doing with the global financial crisis). In some
cases, however, we can keep control, as seen during the Cold War.
<br><br>
How did we make it? Probably because we learned and were precautious,
i.e. we prevented the major conflict ahead of time before having to fight
it. This is what is called counterwar.(i.e. to engage preemptive low cost
actions now, against further higher cost war – along the principle of
precaution). This is (IMHO) the plural attempts to excellence advocated
by Daniel. Defusing criticality in advance through intelligent
self-organization autocatalytic solutions (trying to adapt Ulanowicz to
the digital ecosystem, or an interesting paper of Barry McMullin
<a href="http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~alife/bmcm9901/html-multi/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~alife/bmcm9901/html-multi/</a>)<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#800000"><b>At
04:00 15/08/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote:</b><br>
You ask me which is better. I always have been reluctant to see the
development work area in terms of disjunctive alternatives; either you do
telecenter or not, either you do community work or not, either you are in
open source or not, either you are in the local or not, etc... I
think the plurality and diversity of approaches is valid and the point is
to reach excellence in each one. The challenge is how to articulate
somehow those different approaches and here the results are often
frustrating (one of the reason is the human tendency to consider own
approach as the only valid). In spite the WSIS civil society process was
not capable to integrate all the required diversity (and you are correct
to remind us that), on my experience, it has been quite a successful
effort in terms of articulation and my frustration is that we have lost
this momentum and I wish we could regain it during times where civil
society influence has been decreasing while governments and some big
players from private sector decide our cyberfuture in a way I personally
do not feel comfortable.</font></blockquote><br>
Yes. I suggest we have to consider two things here:<br><br>
1. the WSIS was correct in identifying 4 poles (Govs, CS, Business, and
Intl.orgs). What is wrong is our frequent replacement of Intl.orgs by the
Technical and Academic Community in our schemas. For two reasons: (1)
there are lead users, searchers, and engineers in each stakeholder
category (ARPA to start with is a governmental R&D, and OpenResearch
is Civil Society oriented) and (2) this artificially increases the power
of Govs instead of reducing it. International organizations are temper
sovereignties, sometimes for good and sometimes for the worse.<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>2. We are discussing the data level at the data
level. In other words, we are considering what transports and stores data
(Internet, cloud), how it is organized and how it impacts our lives.
However, we do not consider the fundamental power which is in metadata
(the data on data) and in the metaorganization of these metadata. Where
the reality, i.e. the true power, i.e. the syllodata (the data between
the data), and the way to support them is through communication. What
counts first is the way the real world actually IS, and then we can
consider how we want to complement it (architectonic) along
prefundemantal considerations, then how we will structure this complement
(architecture), then the way we can implement it (engineering), the way
we can intelligently organize our use of this complement, and then - and
only then - the open and neutral best ways that users can utilize and
enjoy the result for their development. <br>
<br>
jfc<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://openuse.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://openuse.org<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</a></font></u></body>
</html>