[governance] Design framework for IGF

[David Allen]

Thanks much for next steps in the thinking.  (Have been in the belly 
of the consultation - now am coughed up, to keyboard another day ... 
sorry for the hiatus, in response.)

A few next next thoughts below.  In general, this is a subject on 
which my first paper goes back over fifteen years now.  The 
organizing rubric has been 'standardization and innovation.'  Though 
order and chaos is more general, and there is a remarkably wide range 
of applications.

However:  Concatenated community structure - but especially its 
operation and evolution, via shared protocols - lie, really, at the 
heart of any useful understanding.  Dynamic change is the essence - 
in a real sense there is not a static starting point and therefore 
not a static representation.  And some will of course also point at 
the Santa Fe Institute, et al.  But all that goes to some detail - 
which is entirely beyond our more practical design purposes here.

At 12:35 AM +0100 2/16/06, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>Dear David,
>
>Interesting contribution. A few general remarks.
>
>1) yes, fleshing out differences explictely early on in processes 
>usually allows for better communications later on. Diplomatic 
>discourse works a lot in the implicit, making understanding each 
>other's positions more difficult.

A fundamental problem, certainly revealed in the five or so years of 
WSIS, as only one for instance - we all, including diplomats, need to 
be able to get to what matters, so we can work on it.  As Keynes 
said, in the long run we are dead.  We only have so much time to get 
results; we need to get on with it rather than temporize.

You begin, I think, to lay out how that might be done - diplomatically:

>Initial stage in dealing with an "issue of common concern or 
>interest" is to get all stakeholders to descibe their understanding 
>of the issue from their "point of view" (litterally from where they 
>observe it). This does not require them to relinquish whatever 
>opinion they have but allows them to integrate opther elements of a 
>more global picture. Same object from a different angle, or the 
>traditional five blind men and the elephant story.
>
>This initial process does provide a more complete common picture of 
>what an issue is about, and what the respective positions of actors 
>are. This provides a better starting point for further discussions.

For me anyway, you begin to describe how incommensurable frameworks 
may be brought to the surface reasonably expeditiously.  We need to 
focus on what otherwise otherwise would be implicit and invisible 
conceptual frameworks - rather than struggle over surface tussles.

When we get the frameworks out, we can see where the immediate 
disagreements come from.  That does not make a bridge.  But it makes 
clear where a bridge must be built, if there ever is to be 
resolution.  Otherwise, the struggle goes on endlessly, with no real 
prospect for resolution.

>  2) Dialectic process. The alternance between standardization and 
>innovation phases is a dynamic mechanism worth refering to. In 
>governance, you could also consider a combination of two notions : 
>"initiation" and "validation".
>
>An broad right of initiative is essential to put issues early on the 
>agenda. The progressive constitution of interest groups, then more 
>and more formal working groups and drafting groups (as need arises) 
>leads to a second phase of validation / adoption of the results 
>(report, recommendation, regimes proposals, etc...) before they are 
>implemented by the concerned stakehollders.

Indeed.

As said, the papers go into some detail, including for instance how 
there is a switchover, between experimentation and consensus 
formation.  Your initiation and validation are, for me, helpful 
alternate formulations.

>This "organic", more biological-like approach (akin to the 
>activation-repression of genes expression) contrasts with the 
>mechanical, "checks and balances" approach of most existing 
>governance mechanisms, particularly representative democracy.

In my view, a most especially important line of thought.  Community 
processes are what human beings respond to.  They are what determine 
choices, by and large.  Only if voting procedures, as just one for 
instance, reinforce such, will they likely be useful in any long run. 
(World news just now is all too confirming of problems with voting, 
if taken in a vacuum.)

Comparisons with the biological is one of the areas for interesting debate.

>3) Starting up the process. In line with your comments on plenary 
>and program committee (informal/formal), the first meeting in Athens 
>is an opportunity to test and implement very open modalities and to 
>later formalize them into simple protocols; the next meeting 
>and possible intermediary ones relaunching the cycle in order for 
>the Forum to progressively get its final shape.
>
>The process here could be the opposite of the lengthy (multi-year) 
>diplomatic negociations before the establishment of new 
>international organizations. The iterative approach here would be : 
>move forward, test modalities, identify the best ones, formalize 
>them somewhat, then repeat the process....

If we should be so fortunate to - be able to - 'learn progressively,' 
what I take to be the essence of the community process ...

>  4) Microcosm. All these concepts are somewhat fractal, 
>self-referential and, yes, self-similar at different scales.

The very essence of concatenation.

>We are establishing a framework defining how activities can be set 
>up, and the establishment of this framework is, in itself, one of 
>the activities it should allow.

Indeed.

>
>  Traditional political science makes a clear distinction between the 
>constitutional phase determining an institutional framework and the 
>normal legislative activities taking place afterwards within it. The 
>US constitution is 200 years old

A mere infant, by comparison with 5,000+ year-old civilizations 
around the world - and all the cumulated learning (and ossification 
...) those multi-millennial histories represent.

>and the rare amendments are not adopted through the normal 
>legislative process, but through a special procedure.
>
>But here, the initial definition of the framework (how the Forum is 
>composed and will function) and its modification on an ongoing basis 
>will be obtained through the normal procedures that the forum will 
>use for its day-to-day activities. This should be a typical example 
>of a bootstrapping, self-establishing process, without a clear 
>Constitutional phase.
>
>I hope these comments will not look too abstract. And for the 
>moment, we will have to focus on the concrete aspects of how to set 
>up the first meeting. But thanks for giving me the opportunity 
>to put down some thoughts I have carried for a long time.
>
>Best
>
>Bertrand

One of the greatest challenges is to mix [fundamental] 
ideas-that-matter with practical choices for today - the two are 
often at opposite ends of the scale.  We face just that challenge, in 
trying to bring together the fruits of research and the wisdom of 
practical experience - in IGF.

(For reference, in the paper index at 
http://www.davidallen.org/pages/paprindx.html a reasonably full piece 
is labeled Liberal Evolution.  Convoluted, I am afraid, to serve a 
particular purpose for that paper.  Paper labeled Dynamic Policy, 
published in Sweden, does some of the same, though earlier.  The 
original, years ago, is labeled Innovation and Standardization, the 
version at the bottom of the page.  Nor have I had the time to write 
the comprehensive paper I would like, for today's debate milieu. 
Mainly, none of this is necessary for our practical design purposes - 
only of concern for those who might like to take the paradigm 
further, or try to debunk it.  And so why I expect further on this to 
be omitted / to be taken up offline ...

(So, everyone else should ignore ...)

David

>
>
>On 2/15/06, David Allen 
><<mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu>David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> 
>wrote:
>
>For those who may be interested, I have posted a piece on a framework
>for design of IGF.
>
> 
><http://davidallen.org/papers/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf>http://davidallen.org/papers/IGF_Framework-A4.pdf
>
>(If a letter size version is helpful, substitute LTR for A4 in the URL.)
>
>David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060218/3f320dda/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance