[governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net

[George Sadowsky]

Michael,

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.  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.  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).

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.  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.  Negativity really does’;t help.  We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.  Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas?

George 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> M  
>  

<<trimmed>>