[bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participan

[joy]

Thanks - I will add these links to the document.
Best
Joy
On 17/10/2013 12:10 p.m., JFC Morfin wrote:
> Joy,
> I have been working along the same line at the IUCG.
>
> 1. you will find the IUWW (Intelligent Use/Internet Users Working
> Wiki) at http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_Multi-stakeholderism
> <http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_Multi-stakeholderism>
> 2. this is in the
> http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations
> <http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations> section.
>
> At 19:25 16/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote:
>> Very good start John but could I add a comment...
>>  
>> I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define MSism
>> and even in those contexts where the term is being used to describe a
>> process there is an implicit assumption of trustworthiness of the
>> various parties.  That is, there seems to be a belief in/acceptance
>> of the good faith of the various parties -- no hidden motives, no
>> hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or financial (or other)
>> relationships. Thus there seems to be an expectation that
>> people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say they are and that
>> their involvement is transparent and their only specific
>> accountability is what they are presenting through their contribution
>> to the MS process itself.
>>  
>> Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to
>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition
>> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the
>> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true; that
>> various of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's terms
>> below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but may
>> rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual, group,
>> corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it may be
>> that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common purpose"
>> could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some circumstance at
>> least no common goal or purpose does or even could  exist among those
>> who are defininng themselves (and being accepted) as "stakeholders".
>
> Michael,
>
> this is definitly true. This is why we have to stop considering that
> the internet is "democratic" (actualy we mean "fair and friendly" old
> days). The network should be neutral, not out of any universal philia
> or human right philantropy, but because this is for each of us the way
> to get it effilient (efficient and resilient) when having to fight and
> win others. ICANN by-laws and OpenStand word it "to foster competition".
>
> The IUCG intends to contribute through its
> http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness
> <http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness> section.
>
> Monarchy, democracy, polycracy are not ideals, they are _mecanisms_.
>
> Under given circumstances these mechanisms are more or less favorable
> to a poltical, legal, military, international, moral, cultural,
> economical, etc. _ethics_ that (when applied) permit to better attain
> a societal ideal, i.e. an _esthetic_ the monarch, a congress, a
> consensus has chosen.
>
> * *_Monarchy_* is a centralized network system that calls for a king,
> delegates to Counts and is advised by Concelors. It is the basic
> system, when the rules of the royal familly are accepted as the common
> laws.
>
> * *_Democracy_* is a decentralized network systel that calls for a
> core leadership by the eponym archon (President), assisted by the
> basileus archon (Sheriff) and the polemarch archon (Commander in
> Chief) supported by an elected Agora (Congress). It is the value added
> system which is needed when free men want to decide the law. The US
> built themselves on this model.
>
> * *_Polycracy _*is distributed network system that becomes necessary
> when the societal organization becomes a sovereignties meshed
> complexity. For 150 years we are increasingly learning about
> policracy. First, with subsidiarity (rules must come from the nearest
> one) and substitution (if the nearest one fails, the one above must
> take-over for the shortest time): Europe is building itself on these
> premises. We discover with the behavior of the whole digital ecosystem
> that it comes with multistakeholderism - as we discovered with
> industrial pollution that it comes with the precautionary principle. etc.
>
> Now, we have to consider the targets: the esthetic ideal for the human
> society:
>
> * The *_WSIS_* esthetic is "*people centered*".
>
> * The *_IETF/IAB _*esthetic was "to make the internet *work better*"
> along RFC 3935 *core values* (here was the dream of supposed
> "democratic" loyal and disinterested philia).
>
> * The *_OpenStand_* esthetic for the "future of the internet
> cooperation" is to *foster a FRAND competition* since the economics of
> global markets and consumers drive the technological advancements.
>
> The MSism to be discussed in during *Brazil autumn* (april in south
> hemisphere) by the "family" (Telcos included), is not going to be
> "people centered" but, pragmatically, to "foster competition". This
> means to make more money blackmailing every of us with the true/false
> data collected on us. This is what I call the ...
> "http://blackdata.biz <http://blackdata.biz/>".
>
> jfc
>
> NB. A professional and objective descriptin of this reality is in
> Ronald Diebert's
> http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no6_2.pdf
> <http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no6_2.pdf> - a text to
> carefully digest.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  
>> That being the case what would/could an effective MS process look like?
>>  
>> M
>>  
>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] *On Behalf Of *John Curran
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:25 AM
>> *To:* Jeremy Malcolm
>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting
>> participants
>>  
>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
>> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day
>> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet
>> policy issues of the moment.  Although the agenda
>> <http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013> (particularly for Day 1 morning)
>> is still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance,
>> the Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance,
>> Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the
>> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more
>>  
>> I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?"
>> (presumably with
>> respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance)
>>  
>> As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone
>> is using the
>> term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with
>> some
>> clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it
>> were to be defined
>> from the civil society perspective)
>>  
>> In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require:
>>  
>> - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common
>> purpose?
>>  
>> - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all
>> interested parties?
>>  
>> - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties?
>>  
>> - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide
>> consideration of all inputs/views?
>>  
>> - Respect for all participants involved?
>>  
>> If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term
>> "multi-stakeholder"
>> (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of
>> it, although the term
>> does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid
>> set of principles
>> regarding its use.  If this suggestion is not aligned with your
>> present plans or goals for
>> the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired.
>>  
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>>  
>> Disclaimers: My views alone.  These views were not formed via
>> multi-stakeholder
>>                    processes (unless one credits various portions of
>> my consciousness
>>                    with independent stakeholder status... ;-)
>>  
>>
>>  
>
> At 21:01 16/10/2013, John Curran wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Very good start John but could I add a comment...
>>
>> Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just my
>> offhand
>> thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this topic. 
>>
>> I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical
>> community
>> have some significant common ground in terms of belief in
>> multi-stakeholder
>> principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common
>> definition (if
>> that is achievable.)
>>
>>>  I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define
>>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to
>>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of
>>> trustworthiness of the various parties.  That is, there seems to be
>>> a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties --
>>> no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or
>>> financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an
>>> expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say
>>> they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only
>>> specific accountability is what they are presenting through their
>>> contribution to the MS process itself.
>>
>> <chuckle>
>>
>> I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an
>> agenda; it may or may be
>> "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other, but
>> presumably there is
>> still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make
>> progress, yes?  
>> For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a
>> meeting, I've pretty much got to
>> carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these
>> may be 'hidden' to anyone
>> who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the
>> Montevideo Statement on Future of
>> Internet Cooperation, etc.  That doesn't mean bad intent, simply lack
>> of understanding of common
>> goals that might already exist.
>>
>> The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective
>> goal or common purpose, that
>> should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place,
>> particularly if the time is taken to
>> find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which
>> reduces the possibility of
>> working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs.
>>
>>>  Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to
>>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition
>>> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the
>>> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true;
>>> thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's
>>> terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose" but
>>> may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual,
>>> group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it
>>> may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common
>>> purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some
>>> circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could 
>>> exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted)
>>> as "stakeholders".
>>
>> I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which is
>> not a situation of unknown
>> motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or
>> subterfuge by a participant); my only
>> advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting
>> views and positions so that
>> such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time.
>>
>> For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services
>> offered by ARIN are set by
>> proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the
>> greater Internet community
>> but a more defined subset.  Compare this with the development of IP
>> address policy, which we believe
>> should be open to all and whose processes should subject to
>> widespread accountability/oversight
>> to Internet community at large.  While it might be favorable in a
>> discussion with civil society for me
>> to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference that
>> ARIN is wonderful and completely
>> guided  by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be
>> shown to be disingenuous given
>> existing documentation and other public statements showing that we
>> strongly feel that our members
>> (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that we
>> offer and fees that we charge.
>> My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that
>> getting participants to speak up
>> and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over
>> time) provide some protection
>> against actual bad actors in the process.  That's all I have as a
>> suggestion on this; I'm afraid that
>> defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous
>> intentionally bad actors may
>> not be readily achievable.
>>
>> /John
>>
>> Disclaimer:  My thoughts alone.  No warranty applies; use at your own
>> risk.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> At 22:34 16/10/2013, joy wrote:
>> Hi all - since Parminder and I are facilitating this opening session
>> and the definitions discussion, I think it would be useful to collate
>> some of these ideas, with your permission :-)
>> If others have ideas or suggestions they would like to share
>> beforehand, please do so,  I have started a pirate pad for this purpose:
>> http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ <http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Joy Liddicoat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17/10/2013 8:01 a.m., John Curran wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very good start John but could I add a comment...
>>>
>>> Oops... I had no intention to propose a "strawman" - that was just
>>> my offhand
>>> thoughts and I highly recommend that better minds consider this topic. 
>>>
>>> I actually do believe that civil society and the Internet technical
>>> community
>>> have some significant common ground in terms of belief in
>>> multi-stakeholder
>>> principles, and there would be benefit in establishing a common
>>> definition (if
>>> that is achievable.)
>>>
>>>>  I think in most of these discussions both in attempts to define
>>>> MSism and even in those contexts where the term is being used to
>>>> describe a process there is an implicit assumption of
>>>> trustworthiness of the various parties.  That is, there seems to be
>>>> a belief in/acceptance of the good faith of the various parties --
>>>> no hidden motives, no hidden agendas, no hidden loyalties or
>>>> financial (or other) relationships. Thus there seems to be an
>>>> expectation that people/"stakeholders" are who and what they say
>>>> they are and that their involvement is transparent and their only
>>>> specific accountability is what they are presenting through their
>>>> contribution to the MS process itself.
>>>
>>> <chuckle>
>>>
>>> I'd have to presume that every party sitting in a discussion has an
>>> agenda; it may or may be
>>> "hidden" depending the circumstances and awareness of each other,
>>> but presumably there is
>>> still enough common ground among the declared common goals to make
>>> progress, yes?  
>>> For example, if you invite me as ARIN's executive to attend a
>>> meeting, I've pretty much got to
>>> carry the objectives given to me by the members and the Board; these
>>> may be 'hidden' to anyone
>>> who hasn't read our online Internet Governance materials, the
>>> Montevideo Statement on Future of
>>> Internet Cooperation, etc.  That doesn't mean bad intent, simply
>>> lack of understanding of common
>>> goals that might already exist.
>>>
>>> The point is that if parties get together to work on a collective
>>> goal or common purpose, that
>>> should suffice to allow to rational discussion to take place,
>>> particularly if the time is taken to
>>> find common assumptions/principles early in the discussion, which
>>> reduces the possibility of
>>> working to different ends because of different underlying beliefs.
>>>
>>>>  Without going into it I think if we are going to attempt to
>>>> define/articulate a realistic and robust "MS process" or definition
>>>> of MSism we have to take into account the possibility, even the
>>>> likelihood, that the above set of beliefs does not hold true;
>>>> thatvarious of the stakeholders for example might not, in John's
>>>> terms below, be "work(ing) to collective goal or common purpose"
>>>> but may rather be working to (non-revealed) purposes of individual,
>>>> group, corporate, ideological or national self-interest. In fact it
>>>> may be that the assumption by some of the existance of a "common
>>>> purpose" could be self-destructively "naïve" and that in some
>>>> circumstance at least no common goal or purpose does or even could 
>>>> exist among those who are defininng themselves (and being accepted)
>>>> as "stakeholders".
>>>
>>> I have very few ideas on how to address this latter problem (which
>>> is not a situation of unknown
>>> motivations but actual intentional misrepresentation and/or
>>> subterfuge by a participant); my only
>>> advice is maximal transparency of process and actively soliciting
>>> views and positions so that
>>> such discrepancies hopefully reveal themselves over time.
>>>
>>> For example, as the CEO of ARIN, I can state that fees and services
>>> offered by ARIN are set by
>>> proceses based in our membership and elected Board, which is not the
>>> greater Internet community
>>> but a more defined subset.  Compare this with the development of IP
>>> address policy, which we believe
>>> should be open to all and whose processes should subject to
>>> widespread accountability/oversight
>>> to Internet community at large.  While it might be favorable in a
>>> discussion with civil society for me
>>> to try and conflate these two topics to the beneficial inference
>>> that ARIN is wonderful and completely
>>> guided  by the Internet community at large, it would eventually be
>>> shown to be disingenuous given
>>> existing documentation and other public statements showing that we
>>> strongly feel that our members
>>> (who pay our fees) have first and primary say in the services that
>>> we offer and fees that we charge.
>>> My apologies for the long example, but it is intended to show that
>>> getting participants to speak up
>>> and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over
>>> time) provide some protection
>>> against actual bad actors in the process.  That's all I have as a
>>> suggestion on this; I'm afraid that
>>> defining an MS process that can thrive in the presence of numerous
>>> intentionally bad actors may
>>> not be readily achievable.
>>>
>>> /John
>>>
>>> Disclaimer:  My thoughts alone.  No warranty applies; use at your
>>> own risk.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131017/a6c9a007/attachment.htm>