[bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participan

[joy]

thanks - I have added a link to this in the pirate pad:
http://piratepad.net/rLCbNUxTtZ
Please, others, do feel free to share and thanks JFC for yours also

Joy
On 17/10/2013 3:12 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> 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/20131017/747bb656/attachment.htm>