<div dir="ltr">Thank you Mehrzad, Baudouin, Deirdre and all.<div><br></div><div>First of all, anything I have said or asked for in this thread was not about "the civil society" but about a particular entity called the Internet Governance Caucus which we are part of -- its mission and structure in the future.<br>
<div><br></div><div>I am happy to be disagreed with especially by someone who can aptly help translate ideas from one particular "language" to another I and most people can comprehend, and more particularly into items that address the question asked. </div>
<div><br></div><div>JFC, my understanding of your notion of achitectonic is that it is the fundamental part of all architectures (like in the French notion of "science fondamentale" vs "science appliquee") and thus architectonic provides the basis for all things architecture. It is in this generic sense that I used the terms architecture or architects, encompassing architectonic and all particular architectures.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What I meant to say about this not being about any particular substantive issue is that we're first concerned about method: a method to get IGC to a place where it can productively discuss about specific questions/ substantive issues and make contributions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thank you for the opinion you have offered. My broader take is that you can still make it easier for me and the IGC to put it to good use. Many of us here are not professionally retired yet, still have a full- and over-time day job far from the email exchanges and discussions we're having here, a family to juggle with, errands to run, shopping to do, etc. etc. So I would really appreciate if posting authors make a sincere and stubborn effort to translate their ideas into a message any one who can read would understand (not just the words individually but the actual notions behind them and the message overall.) </div>
<div><br></div><div>And please let us remember that this is not the technical community engaging in civic action but more of a group of ordinary citizens and end users who are concerned about policy and social implications of IG processes and decisions. Let's speak to this audience and spare each other self-coined acronyms and neologisms as well as heavily technical acronyms with no further explanation than a reference to whole wiki articles before one can make sense of what is being said. I've been to the French school and I've been to the American school; I know the difference between both and more importantly I know it is possible to transition from one to the other. This is a global and very diverse audience, including people for whom English is a second, third or even fourth language in terms of mastery. (So in these public communications, let us not apply any version of Umberto Eco's precept, who said he writes his first 100 pages to select his readers: readers who can get through those first hundred are the ones who deserve to embark with him on the journey of his novels... although I personally enjoy reading him.) </div>
<div><br></div><div>From your first message in this thread, JFC, I got the notion (among others, although I may still be wrong on this one) that according to you we'd rather operate by members teaming up around subject clusters (rather than geographic subdivisions, as Baudouin's reading). But I still wonder how do we do it so as to get the buy-in of the IGC body and its endorsement of the outputs. I also got those high-flying ideas (and God knows I can be very theoretical myself!) re-interpreted for us by Deirdre. But my frustration remains -- Now what? Is IGC just a place to discuss ideas, concepts and theories/visions about Internet & society? Wasn't it you JFC who were making distinction between "reality" (which we have to deal with as is) and "blablabla"? Well our "reality" in this discussion, our datum in the sense of the given "reality" we have to work on here is this: </div>
<div><br></div><div>_Working and operating procedures we can put in place in order to get IGC to become again a credible CS umbrella entity in IG it once was and to be able to work collaboratively and effectively again in order to produce acceptable and accepted outputs for policy decisions on IG._</div>
<div><br></div><div>I am not just asking for a vision or a concept note, but more importantly specific propositions of action items or changes (reform) that will need to be made to IGC structure and modus operandi. At any rate, I would ask anyone keen to formulate a vision (which is a good and I understand may be necessary) to go further and formulate (in plain language) also the action items that we should derive from that vision and make it effective. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I wouldn't have started this thread had I not noticed or acknowledged that the reality we're facing is itself evolving and that IGC has some challenge living up to its charter or mission. Make sense?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I do not wish to regulate any path (as you're presuming) as much as I wish to know whether once we identify issues, emergent or otherwise, we believe we can work together and develop those common positions spoken about in our charter - and how to do this most effectively. I accept any help for us to understand the reality we have to work with - such as yours,- but I wish for more: how meaningfully can we relate that to IGC's objectives and translate that into actionable items for this Caucus, keeping in mind what brought us here in the first place. How can we operationalize the whole vision taking into account the present "reality" of this Caucus.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In your own words, "<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px">The work a very few of us engaged (fsp4net boot strap) is rebuked because we do not have the same language." Hence the need to craft a workable language for the many. We do not help our party nor do we advance our cause when we stick to a self-gratifying language language which some may understand but that many (and even among the former not all will have the patience to read the message to the end.) </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px">You say: "</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px">Your position consists in censoring the Internet governance issues you do not think the others are able to discuss. This is embarassing when they are fundamental. This makes the entire Caucus useless." Assuming you're addressing me (otherwise that would be the authors of the IGC mission statement, i.e. ultimately the whole IGC which voted for the charter), No that's not my position; mine is that whatever the issues, one should make every effort to put it within reach of CS for understanding and consideration. I don't believe there are issues that are or should be of concern for CS/end users/"civil users" as you put it somewhere and yet those issues can only be made understandable to the very few. And if you think as you say that we need first to comprehend the reality we're facing before we can do anything about it (which perfectly makes sense) then you need to be a pedagogue. I'm sure you can help us comprehend that reality, I'm just not sure you're using the right language/pedagogy yet.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>Anyway, after reading and writing all these emails, I would still want to read <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px">Antoinette Rouvroy (thanks for the pointer) and other recent authors whose writings can help us conceptualize on the broader scale of the human journey</span> the conditions of our digital time, or to<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"> revisit Rousseau, Kant, Condorcet and the like in search of a new Enlightenment for this digital era</span> -- a kind of reading that demands and deserves much more attention and effort.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Mawaki</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">
=================</div>Mawaki Chango, PhD</span></span></span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">Founder and Owner</span></span></span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse">DIGILEXIS</span></span></span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">
<a href="http://www.digilexis.com/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">http://www.digilexis.com</a> <br><span style="font-size:13.333333969116211px">Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & </span><span style="font-size:13px">@pro_digilexis</span></div>
</span></span></span></div></div><div><br></div></span></span></span></span></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Deirdre Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:williams.deirdre@gmail.com" target="_blank">williams.deirdre@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Dear JFC,<div>In an earlier message Mawaki made the point that there is no particular reason for the co-coordinators to share the same perspective. I agree with him. The difficulties of electing co-ordinators if that was a requirement would be huge. I write this because I'm about to disagree with him :-)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Your message seems to me to be offering us an analogy - the basic technical structure of the Internet as a model of what could be a "spiritual" structure for "end user governance". It reminds us that in the final analysis we are all "end users", all "civil society". I got a bit lost towards the end because I'm not a technical person and don't think easily in technical terms. However I think I got the general drift - I hope I did because I think it's a wonderful idea.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Trying to give context to a proposal elsewhere I used the sentence "Because it opens and facilitates possibilities for participation,
the “way of the internet” is to allow us to be different
together." I think your model would allow this.</div><div><br></div><div>Societies, or as Garth Graham would prefer communities, form around trust. Members surrender a small part of their individuality - not their freedom, their individuality - for the benefits of belonging to the group. The surrender is what creates tolerance - it allows for "your way is right for you and my way is right for me and we can still be friends."</div>
<div><br></div><div>It's a shame that tolerance and trust once lost are so difficult to find again. However at the level of individuals, one person at a time, although slow, it's possible.</div><div><br></div><div>
Thank you for your suggestion</div><div>Best wishes</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Deirdre</div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On 26 June 2014 17:34, Mawaki Chango <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear JFC,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for your elaboration, which I have read from first to last word -- I am probably one of a few who take the trouble to read your messages integrally. No offense but I am sorry to say this: I understand Foucault (whom I can read and understand in original version without opening a dictionary), including his translations in English, better than I understand you. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The IGC membership/audience is not one of network architects. This thread was not meant to discuss any particular substantive issue, nor was it intended to propose an alternate architecture to the Internet as we know it or to the IG ecosystem for that matter. That might come some other time. But for now, we only seek to figure out how to give a new breath to this Caucus and enable it to work again collaboratively and productively in order to remain relevant through its contributions when it comes to public policy, societal and social implications of Internet governance. For everyone's information, please see below an excerpt of the IGC Charter regarding its mission and objectives.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I would humbly advise you start from the TERMS of OUR question/problem and try to guide us, using those terms and others as simple as those terms, to the "promise land" -- would be best if it is one that addresses our concern -- even if such place may otherwise also be characterized through your preferred architectonic lexicon. But starting from your universe and its language really makes it quite impossible for most people to follow and make something useful for them out of your contributions. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I hope this group will still benefit from your ideas in words that the least engaged of us can still process.</div><div>Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mawaki</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(61,61,61);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">Mission</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(61,61,61)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:10.5pt 0in;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(61,61,61)">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(61,61,61);border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0in">Objectives
and Tasks</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(61,61,61)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:10.5pt 0in;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(61,61,61)">The objectives and tasks of the IGC are to:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:10.5pt 0in;line-height:13.5pt;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(61,61,61)">* Inform civil society and other progressive
groups/actors on significant developments impacting on Internet governance
policies.<br>
* Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever possible,
face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to Internet governance
policies from a civil society perspective.<br>
* Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create informal
relationships with various CS groups and individuals with a direct interest in
Internet governance policies, including those involved in human rights, ICT4D,
intellectual property, international trade and global electronic commerce,
access to knowledge, and security.<br>
* Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in some
aspect of Internet governance polices.<br>
Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies with similar
interests, generally or on specific issues, at various forums involved with
Internet governance policies.<br>
* For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes, develop
common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and make
outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based support among
other CS groups and individuals for such positions.<br>
* Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of Internet
governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that is informed
by the stated vision of the IGC.<br>
* Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of agreed projects
and policies towards better Internet governance.</span></p></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:40 PM, JFC Morfin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com" target="_blank">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div><div>
Dear Mawaki,<br><br>
let assume the WSIS achitectonic model (gov, private, international,
civil) is right. A serious MSism needs to proceed by layers/planes/topics
: politics, economy, technology, research, law, culture, etc. For each of
these layer/plane/topic each MS group need to bring a balancing
contribution that will contribute with its particular abilities,
interests, working results, dynamism, ideas, innovation.<br><br>
From what we observe Govs are influenced by the USG, private sector by
ICC, international by UN, i.e. three diversified layers/plans/topics
leadership/facilitating dynamisms. Civil Society, for various good and
bad reasons (including lack of money, lack of self-understanding of the
differences between government of people, sales to markets, NGO crowds,
and global complex multitude) has done quite nothing except focusing on
human rights, mostly only talking about them. <br><br>
As a result every human knows now how to be influenced by machines, be
commanded by govs, buy as a consumer, and wait for foreign help. We have
all forget that we are those who build the world, help each others, are
the govs and make the industry work. We forgot to contribute only
complaining.<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>How to correct this?<br><br>
</u></b>My understanding is that the WSIS model has three global and
specialized classes (govs, business and NGOs) and one local and general
one (Civil Society). We are at different granularity level. To obtain
global peace Govs want to coordinate, business to compete, NGOs to help:
we want to live in a resulting local peace we are to organize and
consolidate in our own framework.<br><br>
If the others cannot network that peace, or need help, we have to weave
it at our own level: we the people. <br><br>
This is why I think the solution is to come back to the network
fundamentals (it being ARPANET, Tymnet, Internet, UN, I*Core, etc.)
: the networking we use must fit the networking we are given. Govs,
business, International organizations try to build a top down solution:
the nework of networks. We need to use our networks in it. This makes a
simple model: the networks of the network of networks.<br><br>
This has a simple name which is called coalitions, alliances, peoples,
nations, communities, collectivities, families, frienship, projects,
persons, closed-user-groups, class/groups, etc. etc. in states, people
and machines relations. In internet wording these are "entangled
VGNs" (virtual global networks, or "open closed gardens").
They are the way we chose to stabilize our individual or grouped
optimization of our digitalities networking. <br><br>
You can call them the way you want if you are not pleased with the term.
The important thing for each of us is the way we can build, govern and
protect them..<br><br>
From my personal experience, we are right now <br>
- staturated at the states global VGN planes (US, CN, possibly Europe,
etc.),<br>
- we are fed-up by the private global systems (edge providers, technology
communities) <br>
- and uncertain about the states and private national VGNs (e-government,
national franchising, e-commerce). <br><br>
Also, we are not ready at individual planes (still a lot of Libre
solutions integration needed to ballance and interface with institutional
and commercial propositions). <br><br>
<br>
<b><u>The engaged necessary wining path<br><br>
</u></b>As a conquence, I think and try to experiment what is possible to
do at the intermediate level of quarters, villages, valleys, etc. Where
people share many different economic, political, cultural, family,etc.
interests. This is why I am more interested in the "intelligent
village on the information highways by everyone for everyone",
because as Gene Gaines puts it: "we are the internet". In that
context, the local VGN (virtual glocal network) become real stakeholders
with the same power as the US VGN, with their own HomeRoot, SuperIANA,
Happy-IPs. Not yet fully organized, tested, etc. But we have a few months
before they try to flood the planet with their NTIACANN Love Story. In
every plan preparation, a contingency plan is necessary. It is mine, and
I suggest that the more we are the best it will be.<br><br>
Sorry if my project is in French. But links are also in English. I would
like to fill this page:
<a href="http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d'initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde" target="_blank">
http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d%27initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde</a>
<br>
with links to local significative people's projects.<br><br>
The conceptual modem is simple:<br><br>
- a local physical meshed network offering fast and symetric connections
(M&M model: masters with masters),<br>
- with SDN (software designed networking) connected through OPES (open
pluggable edge services), <br>
- with a LISP IPv4 gateway relating with <br>
--- other similar plateforms <br>
--- or edge providers selected through the local/personal DNS
through different technology network systems. <br>
--- or regular current internet (default).<br><br>
Forget about ICANN, RIRs, IETF: <br>
- they only are interested in low grade (current non neutral QoS),<br>
- while our VGN layer (actually the missing OSI presentation layer six)
can support <br>
--- local/global traffic optimization, <br>
--- including CCN (content centered networking) <br>
--- and active content intelligrams (intelligence)<br><br>
This is not big conceptual deal, except that we have to coordinate a
myriad of solutions, make them compatible, etc. hence to be present as MS
"inter-users" (i.e. talking together and not only having
network access) in the normative assemblies. Standards are the way we are
governed. Time has come for norms to be part of political parties
projects. What is to be our society: power, money, machine, people
centered ?<br><br>
If we are not member of the resulting MS debate and running code/leaving
mode experimentation, never mind, the result will be the same (digital
world equilibrium) after some more delays and clashes. Scientifically
this is named "self-ordering criticality". "SOC" is
the way the world works. Criticalities can be benign when people are
smart, they can be wars when they are not.<br><br>
jfc<div><br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 14:01 26/06/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Dear Members,<br><br>
This is an informal inquiry I would like to launch to hear from IGC
members or list subscribers and collect your ideas about where we should
go from here, as the Internet Governance Caucus. <br><br></div></div>
Particularly, please share your thoughts as to whether, in this context
of IG or Information Society more broadly, civil society needs an
analogue to what ICC BASIS
(<a href="http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/basis/" target="_blank">
<font face="arial">
http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/basis/</font></a>) is
doing for business, and if so, what this would need to be like.<div><div><br><br>
Thanks for your cooperation.<br><br>
Mawaki<br><br></div></div><div>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<div><br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">
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" target="_blank">
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/" target="_blank">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></div></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><div class="">-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>