<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#CCCCCC">
Dear Civil Society Colleagues,<br>
<br>
The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who
pepper the various governance lists and attend the conferences as
representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above
suspicion. <a
href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Caesar%27s+wife+must+be+above+suspicion">We
are Caesars wife</a>.<br>
<br>
A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent
activities involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been
resisted is confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not,
our good work will take place under not in a cloud. <br>
<br>
Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the
billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past
our heritage.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Thomas Lowenhaupt<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
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;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Tks George,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Responses inline<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: George Sadowsky [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>] <br>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM<br>
To: gurstein michael<br>
Cc: Peter Ian; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>; Civil IGC Society
Internet Governance Caucus -; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a><br>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency
Process for 1Net</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Michael,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">We have known each other for some time,
ever since Mike McCracken introduced us virtually at least 10
years ago. I think that we can count on an adequate
reservoir of mutual respect to have this conversation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[MG>]
yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has
never put his very considerable experience and
skepticism with respect to Telecom regulatory matters to
work in these areas :) <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">First, I am not one of the directly
responsible parties for 1net, although I was chair of the
technical stakeholder group NomCom that provided people to the
1net steering committee. I admit that I don't understand the
exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we differ
as it doesn’t bother me. Here is why.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[MG>]
okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily
"bothered by" not understanding the mechanism rather I
am bothered by the non-acceptance that we should and
have a right to knowledge/understanding about that
process.. 1Net is important and potentially (based on
the aspirations that some including yourself below have
expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a
requirement for full transparency in this and other
areas<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Before 1net, IG discussions generally
were intense within stakeholder groups, but not between them.
Ultimately, this is not productive; it results in multiple
echo chambers — the image that comes to mind is of different
stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in
London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted. In one form
or another, the 1net list had to happen and should have
happened. We should thank its originators. It is a meeting
place, with no content except that which we contribute to it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[MG>]
If this were in fact the case I would agree with you.
But 1Net has demonstrated in repeated instances that it
is more than simply a "meeting place". <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">
1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors
for it's Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus
excluded others)--by what process and who had input into
this process and by what authorization did they act in
this way--without attributing any bias or other
criticism do you see any reason why this should not be
publicly presented if only to ensure that for example,
no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into this
process of inclusion/exclusion<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">
2. it designated certain participants as interlocutors
for it's selection of representation on various of its
Committees etc. interfacing with the Brazil process (and
thus excluded others)--by what process and who had input
into this process and by what authorization did they act
in this way--again without attributing any bias or other
criticism do you see any reason why this should not be
publicly presented if only to ensure that for example,
no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into this
process of inclusion/exclusion<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">
3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of
discussions--who provided and directed those
resources--again without attributing any inappropriate
action or interference or other criticism do you see any
reason why this should not be publicly presented if only
to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or
otherwise built into this process<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">
4. it expended resources in designing and producing a
set of Forums and an associated website--who provided
and directed those resources--again without attributing
any inappropriate action or interference or other
criticism do you see any reason why this should not be
publicly presented if only to ensure that for example,
no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into this
process<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Is the steering committee biased, or
subject to capture? You express concern that "no elements of
corporate or other capture have been involved or are inserted
into the structures that have been provided for framing the
on-going discussion.” I understand your concern, but each
stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if
there were any such concerns, would they not be reported out?
Can we not let the process continue and extract value from it,
and let the presence of representatives on the committee deal
with such a concern?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[MG>]
One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that
the information requested above was available either
internally or externally we have no evidence on the
basis of which to make judgments as to whether it is
reasonable</span> to <span style="color:black">let the
process continue and extract value from it" and given
the lack of information concerning the #1 above we again
do not have sufficient information to "</span> <span
style="color:black">let the presence of representatives
on the committee deal with such a concern", particularly
since concerns have been expressed with respect to
possible bias resulting from the non-transparent
selection processes with respect to two of the three
stakeholder groups represented in the Steering Committee
(CS and the corporate sector).<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Now to your concern that 1net is
apparently the official conduit of ideas to the Brazil
meeting. I think that is not correct. Brazil apparently
wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting, and
it chose 1net. I suspect that in part it did to want to be
the arbiter of independent streams of information and requests
form multiple groups, some of which were contesting the
legitimacy of others. I don’t blame them; they want to work
for solutions, not solve representational disputes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[MG>]
And again I agree with this but note that I said that
1Net was both “interposed” and ”interposed itself” and
my concern and desire for information has to do with the
latter element i.e. that 1Net "interposed itself" and
thus information concerning the background to 1Net
should be made available.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">IMO, the best contribution that we, as a
community concerned about the Internet, can make is to search
for ideas, to define existing problems accurately and to test
solutions against the requirements that they must meet. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>[MG>] I agree again but my
concern is with ensuring that we do "define existing
problems <u>accurately</u>" and in a manner that is not
otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest
bias (by overt action) or implicit bias (through the
pre-structuring of debate, discussion and output as for
example, through the exclusion of certain voices or the
undue promotion of other voices; or through the
introduction of latent “filtering/framing” of discussion
as for example, in the manner in which discussion is
“Summarized” or in how discussion is channeled into
certain directions through the design of a pattern of
“Forums”). Surely you agree that full
disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of
accountability governing such processes would immediately
remove most concerns about such possible bias.<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil
conference, but if useful ideas emerge from 1net, surely they
could and should be used as input to discussions in Brazil, as
well as input to any other formalized IG discussion. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>[MG>] again I agree but see my
caveats as above<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Perhaps more important, the Brazil
meeting welcomes statements of any kind as input to its
conference, directly without passing through 1net, by the
beginning of March. 1net is not in any way transmitting or
filtering this input (nor should it).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[MG>]
again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a
substantive and significant role as “Summarizing” and
“framing through Forums” certain inputs into this
process and it is in this that I am suggesting the
requirement for transparency </span></i></b><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">All stakeholder groups are in this
together. We want an Internet that is stable, secure, and not
subject to undue influence, intimidation or outright capture
by any sectoral interest. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>[MG>] and again I agree but
that puts an additional onus on the process to ensure that
there is full transparency and accountability within
stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS
stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder
collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. <o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>As well we must not fail to
recognize that some stakeholder groups start off in the
process with more influence and resources than others and
thus (to go back to Anne’s question where all of this
started) among the greatest tools to ensure against such
“capture by any sectoral interest” is full transparency
and accountability through appropriate and inclusive
structures—which is what I would think we would all be
striving for. <o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">We will not get there unless we can
converge on broadly acceptable collations, and we won’t get
those solutions unless we come up with good ideas and
discuss/debate them. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>[MG>] agreed<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Negativity really does’;t help. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>[MG>] agreed but nor does
ignoring reasonable requests for reasonable
disclosure/transparency. This only leads to further
distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes
that you are pointing to.<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">We have an agora, 1net, that appears to
offer an arena for that. Can't we just use it and concentrate
upon ideas?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[MG>]
yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is
necessary to ensure that it is not, as the “agora*”
started out i.e. a place where “</span></i></b>free-born
male land-owners who were citizens would gather in the agora
for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king or
council” <b><i>but rather is, as it later became,</i></b> “a
marketplace where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their
goods <b><i>(MG: “and ideas”) and the best way to ensure that
the agora is the latter and not the former, is full
transparency as to processes and inputs. <o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>And again I can see no reason why
this response should come from you who is as you say “</i></b>
not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net” <b><i>and
not from 1Net itself, who could as I’ve said repeatedly
end this discussion once and for all by spending no more
than one or two hours in responding to a set of questions
which any “public” and publically accountable process
would find completely normal and acceptable. The failure
to do so, (wearing my auditor’s hat) suggests that perhaps
there is something to hide which the responsible parties
are unwilling to disclose.</i></b><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">Mike<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">George<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>*</i></b> <b><i><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora</a><o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael
gurstein <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gurstein@gmail.com</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> I must admit to finding it quite
bizarre to see folks on the one hand extolling the necessity
for Transparency in the abstract while declaiming on the
possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to support its
application in the concrete; talking about the application of
Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and
by and not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate
and significant application and one moreover which is
impacting on current CS activities and outputs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Precisely what are people afraid of
in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and
interposed itself between “CS” and the Brazil meeting, make
transparent its decision making processes including in the
crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and
decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. This is the
absolute minimum that would be expected from any public body
or agency. And certainly it would appear that many of the
folks in this discussion not only are seeing MS structures
such as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, they are seeing
them as central public bodies in the Internet public policy
space.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Insisting that the responsible
parties in 1Net spend the hour or two required to provide a
public accounting of their actions, resources and procedures
would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to assure
all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture
have been involved or are inserted into the structures that
have been provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or
perhaps are those opposing this absolutely minimum measure
afraid of what might be revealed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> It is surely worthy of note that
none of those on the 1Net Steering Committee have as yet
provided comment on this discussion as for example, by giving
instances of how they were consulted in the contracting of the
“Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the “Forums
website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at
least a certain degree of internal transparency.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> If something as simple and
straightforward as this is so fiercely resisted by certain CS
and other parties, what possible assurance is there that there
will be any effective oversight or overwhelming insistence on
Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate and
complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being
touted by one and all and including so many involved in this
discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> M <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><<trimmed>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>