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

[David Cake]

On 1 Nov 2014, at 7:35 pm, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>> 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.

	My comments really about whether transparency is a high priority relate to JNC relatively consistent backing of the ITU as a superior forum to highly transparent MS fora even while the ITU remains closed. 
	But I guess i am willing to concede that this could be regarded as a difference of strategy rather than principle (in which case I just think it is a terrible strategy to implicitly reward the behaviour you are critical of). And I note your mention of transparency as a principle in the best practice document you link to. I think my position of 'clearly the JNC supports transparency, but that position is weakened by its previous support for non-transparent fora over transparent ones' is supportable, but I'll concede does not constitute a major point of divergence. 

	Of course, the really important point here is noting that I feel transparency is a both a positive principle for MS advocates within civil society, and should be considered a very high priority principle for CS generally. And of course transparency is a generally observed actual property of IG MS fora. while multi-lateral or plurilateral fora often need to be dragged to it kicking and screaming towards it. We should be thankful to anyone who has put in their share of dragging. 

>> 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.

	Very glad to hear it. It certainly was not the impression I got from much JNC rhetoric, which tends strongly towards the exclusion of commercial operators from direct participation in policy processes. 

> But that does not imply that they should be able to veto decisions.

	That is probably largely about very differing ideas about how consensus decision making works. This idea that MS fora use a form of consensus that allows a single group to veto developments simply is generally not sustained by looking at actual processes. 

> If you cannot make decisions that industry does not like, they you won't
> have seat belts in cars, prohibitions on cigarette advertising, etc.

	True, and there do need to be other mechanisms to deal with a failure to reach consensus. But consensus decision making does not imply giving all stakeholders a veto, though obviously proposals that have strong opposition may be a lot harder to get through a consensus process. 

>> 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.

	I certainly do not define consensus as unanimity. We should not reward simple intransigence. 
	Which groups do define consensus as unanimity? 
	ICANN doesn't (GNSO for example distinguishes between Full or Unanimous Consensus, and Consensus (which permits a small minority disagreement)). 
IETF certainly doesn't demand unanimity. For that matter, while I'm not personally experienced in ITU processes, but my understanding is the ITU generally uses the ISO/IEC Guide 2 consensus definition, which specifically says "Consensus need not imply unanimity".
	So where did this idea that MS processes work on the basis of consensus=unanimity come from?
	Anyway, sounds a pretty straw man argument to me, when looked at in any detail. 

>  Or even to giving
> private companies veto power over things like safety standards.

While I note that you specifically rule out the IETF form of consensus as suitable for public policy (and it is, of course, designed for standards processes, so it would be surprising if it translated directly) the IETF definition does reward close examination. I particularly think any broader discussion of consensus in IG should include RFC 7282, in which Pete Resnick sets out a thorough explanation of IETF consensus in practice  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

It is notable that IETF rough consensus can mean overruling a group, even a large group, even a numerical majority of participants, that are simply stonewalling without presenting new arguments towards their position. 

The form of consensus used in multi-lateral fora seems much less flexible in this regard from my outsider perspective, and very conducive to allowing a single state to stonewall indefinitely. 
	
>> 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

	Thank you for the link, it was well worth reading, and while I have strong disagreement with some aspects (I certainly would regard many multi-stakeholder outcomes as having a far higher level of legitimacy than industry self-regulation), it certainly does point out some points that I think would be widely supported within civil society. 

> But I agree with you that working out the details is a non-trivial exercise,
> and will require some thinking.

	Indeed. 
	I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to compare your detailed discussion of requirements for open multi-stakeholder processes with, say, ICANN or RIR or IETF working group processes. In practice there really do not seem to obviously be too many differences (though your structure seems somewhat inflexible to me). 
	And I thank you for making clear the distinction between open and closed multi-stakeholder processes, which Michael Gurstein often does not. 

>  And no, I don't think that the IETF's
> version of "rough consensus" is suitable for public policy matters.

	While the IETF version is not as suitable for bodies in which stakeholders are formally defined, I'd be interested to hear your objections to the IETF model - as you concentrate on issues such as requirements for unanimity leading to veto power, or numeric stacking, objections with do not appear to apply to the IETF version of rough consensus. 

	Regards

		David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141102/82dd83d3/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/20141102/82dd83d3/attachment.sig>