<html>
<body>
At 14:45 31/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Figuring out which governance
actions are in the public interest (in<br>
the sense of some reasonable interpretation of what is the public<br>
interest) requires a significant amount of talking.</blockquote><br>
Yes. You have to think and mutually exchange before deciding and acting.
The change in multistakeholderism is that decision and acting is not
collective but individual after collective talking and individual
R&D.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I think the key questions
are:<br><br>
1) Are the interests and concerns of all relevant and interested<br>
stakeholders represented in the talking process?</blockquote><br>
No. And this is why I wish we has a documented MuSHmap. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">2) Is the talking which is being
done directed at the objective of<br>
figuring out which governance actions are in the public interest (in<br>
the sense of some reasonable interpretation of what is the public<br>
interest)?</blockquote><br>
Even before definint what is the public interest, the problem here is to
define what is a governance action, so we know if the debate is credible
enough or not.<br><br>
Then public interest is by nature to be defined through an architectonic
esthetic. Un to now, we lived in a 3D (actually more and more 4D)
environment. We now are to live in a 7D environment because we are a
liitle bit creeping out of the Plato's cavern. This is the Snowden's big
news. Plato is right: reality outside of the cave is to be dealt through
intelligence. The three dimensions of reality we are to live with are
data, metadata (data on data) and syllodata (data between data). This is
something hard to swallow :-), but actually IETF did. So, we may come
back to Aristotle. This and the epistemologic and societal debate and
progress since 115 years is <u>another story</u>.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">(Nota bene it is possible for
talking which pretends to have this<br>
objective to be in reality in pursuit of other goals, such as
advancing<br>
personal careerist goals, or putting up smoke screens behind which<br>
human rights violating governments and other powerful actors whose<br>
particular interests conflict with the public interest can hide how<br>
unacceptable their actions truly are!)</blockquote><br>
Yes. This is most of the CS activity. This always was: to vote on the way
we will vote.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">3) Does the talking lead to
clear output documents that can inform actions?</blockquote><br>
No. This is the need for the OpenUse documentation of the digisphere
(i.e. everything we can be, do, and use after the digital renormalization
which is extanding our world).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">4) Are the documents which have
resulted from the public interest oriented discourse used in determining
the actions that are taken?</blockquote><br>
There is not yet any architectonic public interest discourse, because
architectonics is totally new to humanity. So far humanity has managed
its environement and the people liberty (this is the definition of
politics). Now, humanity has to build an extension of its own environment
and of its own self. This has even been introduced 10 years ago in the
French constitution with the duty for the State and every citizen to
precautionnally act to protect the societal future. <br><br>
We were learning. Until the unilateral decision of IAB to quit its de
facto architectonical role (OpenStand and RFC 6852). <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I think that currently the
answers to these questions are “yes” only for some relatively narrow
highly technical topic areas, the policy development processes of the
RIRs being one of the best examples.</blockquote><br>
Only in part. Yes within the satUS-quo. Architectonically no. The
Internet current architecture is the US Gov architecture I accepted the
interconnect to the world system in 1984, Jon Postel documenting our
consensus in RFC 920<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">There are important other topic
areas where a small number of powerful<br>
stakeholders so far have held the power to decide either alone or in<br>
consultation with each other what the online world is to be like.
They<br>
have not had any need to go through the steps '1' to '4', and
they're<br>
typically reacting with smoke screen type responses to demands for
any<br>
kind of public interest oriented policy development that might
possibly<br>
contradict their particular interests.</blockquote><br>
Yes. <br><br>
The smoke screen has mostly originated in "Civil Society"
because the digital environment is technical. The way to block innovation
was to use the talks of good people to confuse the endeavours of other
good people.<br><br>
This is the devil trap we have to extricate ourselves. I think a solution
is to use RFC 6852 and OpenStand under our own terms to position
ourselves the people, as a consistent and consensual "global
community", issuing documented technical specifications leading to
the societal consequences we want.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br><br>
-- <br>
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:<br>
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the
person<br>
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you
accept<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>