[bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net - We are Caesar Wife

[Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal]

Avri,

Tank you for your message, even though it brings no answer to the pending questions. 

Everyone can measure that the issues at stake do have serious consequences. But there is still a difference between "not having the answers" and "trying to elude, or hide the issues at stake". Moreover, if you are not able to bring an answer, or be part of an honest audience that wishes to keep trust around within these present postings, why to bother with an empty message. So thanks for not participating to this very needed endeavor. Then maybe do not feel fill the air with additional vacuum. Vacuum sometimes confuses people. 

Michael, Thomas, me and many others do have a serious, urgent, necessary need for good answers - as you might have noticed, there are people in the 1net "thing" that are transfuses from the lists, and all of that is far from neutral. Democracy is a better deal than Asymmetocracy (see AMS model).

My impression is that you underestimate what it is at stake Avri, and why Michael's questions are simply absolutely critical. Or do you deliberately try to avoid some hard facts? 

Whatever! We will look elsewhere for answers. And they will come. I agree with Thomas :"Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the billions who will be affected by our actions."

History will tell who were the decent folks trying to have a fair Internet debate and governance. And who were the Asymmetrics.

JC

Le 10 févr. 2014 à 16:58, Avri Doria a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> Umm, we are not Ceasar's Wife as we are not subordinate to the others as Ceasar's wife was to Ceasar.  I assume you meant Pompeia as she was the one he divorced with those words.
> 
> We need to be transparent and accountable because that is something that needs to be a default for all groups.  /1net could be much more voluntarily transparent and accountable.
> 
> I will not be joining the self-designated&appointed /1net Transparency and Accountability group, having just gotten off such an effort and found it to be exhausting and very time consuming to do a proper and neutral job of it. I wish you all the best of luck at achieving an outcome that others can look at and see as legitimate and useful.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 10-Feb-14 10:15, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>> Dear Civil Society Colleagues,
>> 
>> The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who pepper
>> the various governance lists and attend the conferences as
>> representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above
>> suspicion. We are Caesars wife
>> <http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Caesar%27s+wife+must+be+above+suspicion>.
>> 
>> A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent activities
>> involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been resisted is
>> confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not, our good work
>> will take place under not in a cloud.
>> 
>> Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the
>> billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past our
>> heritage.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Thomas Lowenhaupt
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tks George,
>>> 
>>> Responses inline
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM
>>> To: gurstein michael
>>> Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com; Civil IGC Society Internet
>>> Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
>>> 1Net
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never
>>> put his very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to
>>> Telecom regulatory matters to work in these areas :) /*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered
>>> by" not understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the
>>> non-acceptance that we should and have a right to
>>> knowledge/understanding about that process.. 1Net is important and
>>> potentially (based on the aspirations that some including yourself
>>> below have expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a
>>> requirement for full transparency in this and other areas/*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you. But 1Net
>>> has demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a
>>> "meeting place". /*
>>> 
>>> */1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's
>>> Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by
>>> what process and who had input into this process and by what
>>> authorization did they act in this way--without attributing any bias
>>> or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be
>>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
>>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*
>>> 
>>> */2.   it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's
>>> selection of representation on various of its Committees etc.
>>> interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by
>>> what process and who had input into this process and by what
>>> authorization did they act in this way--again without attributing any
>>> bias or other criticism do you  see any reason why this should not be
>>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
>>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*
>>> 
>>> */3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of
>>> discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without
>>> attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other
>>> criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly
>>> presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately
>>> or otherwise built into this process/*
>>> 
>>> */4. it expended resources in designing and producing  a set of Forums
>>> and an associated website--who provided and directed those
>>> resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or
>>> interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should
>>> not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias
>>> was deliberately or otherwise built into this process/*
>>> 
>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the
>>> information requested above was available either internally or
>>> externally we have no evidence on the basis of which to make judgments
>>> as to whether it is reasonable to let the process continue and extract
>>> value from it" and given the lack of information concerning the #1
>>> above we again do not have sufficient information to " let the
>>> presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a
>>> concern", particularly since concerns have been expressed with respect
>>> to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent selection
>>> processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups
>>> represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector)./*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was
>>> both “interposed” and ”interposed itself” and my concern and desire
>>> for information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net
>>> "interposed itself" and thus information concerning the background to
>>> 1Net should be made available./*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do
>>> "define existing problems _accurately_" and in a manner that is not
>>> otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by
>>> overt action) or implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate,
>>> discussion and output as for example, through the exclusion of certain
>>> voices or the undue promotion of other voices; or through the
>>> introduction of latent “filtering/framing” of discussion as for
>>> example, in the manner in which discussion is “Summarized” or in how
>>> discussion is channeled into certain directions through the design of
>>> a pattern of “Forums”). Surely you agree that full
>>> disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability
>>> governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about
>>> such possible bias./*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above/*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> 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).
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a
>>> substantive and significant role as “Summarizing” and “framing through
>>> Forums” certain inputs into this process and it is in this that I am
>>> suggesting the requirement  for transparency /*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the
>>> process to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability
>>> within stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS
>>> stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder
>>> collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. /*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> */As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups
>>> start off in the process with more influence and resources than others
>>> and thus (to go back to Anne’s question where all of this started)
>>> among the greatest tools to ensure against such “capture by any
>>> sectoral interest” is full transparency and accountability through
>>> appropriate and inclusive structures—which is what I would think we
>>> would all be striving for. /*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] agreed/*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> Negativity really does’;t help.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for
>>> reasonable disclosure/transparency.  This only leads to further
>>> distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes that you are
>>> pointing to./*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.
>>> Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas?
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary
>>> to ensure that it is not, as the “agora*”  started out i.e. a place
>>> where “/*free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in
>>> the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king
>>> or council” */but rather is,  as it later became,/* “a marketplace
>>> where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their goods */(MG: “and
>>> ideas”) and the best way to ensure that the agora is the latter and
>>> not the former,  is full transparency as to processes and inputs. /*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> */And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you
>>> who is as you say “/* not one of the directly responsible parties for
>>> 1net” */and not from 1Net itself, who could as I’ve said repeatedly
>>> end this discussion once and for all by spending no more than one or
>>> two hours in responding to a set of questions which any “public” and
>>> publically accountable process would find completely normal and
>>> acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my auditor’s hat) suggests
>>> that perhaps there is something to hide which the responsible parties
>>> are unwilling to disclose./*
>>> 
>>> */Mike/*
>>> 
>>> George
>>> 
>>> */*/* */http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora/*
>>> 
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>> <mailto: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>>
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140210/89025d08/attachment.htm>