[bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participan

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Hi all

I attach the recommendations from a workshop on how to have effective
participative policy processes that APC, CDT and Nepad convened at the
African IGF.  It contains some useful and practical points on how to
make these MS type processes more effective.

Anriette


On 17/10/2013 03:25, joy wrote:
> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131017/3de24717/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AfIGF13_pre-event_Policy_process_Recommendations_Final_24092013 .pdf
Type: application/force-download
Size: 116057 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131017/3de24717/attachment.bin>