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

[Avri Doria]

(ignoring cross posting rule yet again, but am responding to a cross post)


Hi,

Sorry my answer was deemed empty. I try to put content in, but 
sometimes, I guess I just miss the mark.

I just want to point out related to my note:

- I have no authority to make /1net more transparent or to reveal 
anything.  I am just another non-governmental participant, though I do 
support the effort.

- I have asked transparency questions on the /1net list in relation to 
things like the open archive for the /1net-sc. So I have been mildly 
active in the same cause as you are espousing.  I certainly have not had 
the zeal of others in attacking this particular issue.

- I wished you all well in your effort.

But, I accept that some may judge me to be a Bad Asymmetric Person 
(BAP). That's life.

avri

On 10-Feb-14 11:32, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
> 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
>>>> <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>; Civil IGC Society Internet
>>>> Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> <mailto: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>
>>>> <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 <mailto: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
>