[bestbits] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] Principles (warning - long)

[David Cake]

FWDed as requested

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch>
> Subject: RE: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)
> Date: 1 November 2014 7:35:00 pm AWST
> To: "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>, "David Cake" <dave at difference.com.au>
> Cc: "Best Bits" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <Forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> Reply-To: <rhill at hill-a.ch>
> 
> Dear David,
> 
> Since I don't subscribe to BestBits, I would appreciate it if you would
> forward this message to that list.
> 
> I will reply here only to small portions of David's message below.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
>> Le 1 nov. 2014 à 11:21, David Cake a écrit :
>> 
> 
> SNIP
> 
>> Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of
> non-transparency
>> such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high
> priority for
>> the JNC,
> 
> The JNC has explicitly called for the ITU to be fully transparent, both by
> co-signing a call to that effect from multiple organizations, and in its own
> statement to the ITU.  See
> 
> http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014.pdf
> 
> and
> 
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-civil-society-letter-transparency-itu-pleni
> po
> 
>> considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era,
> etc.
> 
> Anybody who has followed ITU in any detail knows that I (Richard Hill) have
> worked diligently since 2001 to make the ITU more transparent.
> 
> SNIP
> 
>> It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and
> transparency,
>> are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the
> outcome
>> of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable
> 
> I would say desirable and necessary.
> 
> But that does not imply that they should be able to veto decisions.
> 
> If you cannot make decisions that industry does not like, they you won't
> have seat belts in cars, prohibitions on cigarette advertising, etc.
> 
> SNIP
> 
>> And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision
> making.
> 
> That's probably where we differ, depending on how one defines consensus.
> 
> If it is unanimity, then consensus can lead to paralysis.  Or even to giving
> private companies veto power over things like safety standards.
> 
>> It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact
>> definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its
> processes,
>> and there are several more  being used in the IG space), and some may
>> be more practical or desirable than others.
> 
> Yes.  Norbert Bollow and I have sketched out some ideas, see the last part
> of the paper at:
> 
>  http://www.apig.ch/best_practices.pdf
> 
> But I agree with you that working out the details is a non-trivial exercise,
> and will require some thinking.  And no, I don't think that the IETF's
> version of "rough consensus" is suitable for public policy matters.
> 
> SNIP
> 
>> I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously
> were
>> OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit
>> to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency,
> 
> See above for the JNC position regarding ITU transparency.
> 
>> Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement
>> of existing fora would be useful.
> 
> Yes.  I already invited Anne to cooperate to draft a document that captures
> the areas on which we agree, and also the areas on which we disagree.  But I
> don't recall any agreement regarding how to proceed to draft such a
> document.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/00993747/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/00993747/attachment.sig>