[governance] Dealing with "Controversial issues" (was : Re: GPLv3 implementation of "user centric identity"?)

[Garth Graham]

The following is a private email exchange between Bertrand de la  
Chapelle and myself.  Since it amplifies a number of concerns this  
thread is raising, I asked him if I could repost it here and he agreed.

GG

On 30-Mar-06, at 10:20 AM, Garth Graham wrote:

> On 29-Mar-06, at 8:04 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
>> Your comment helped me understand for instance a dimension of the  
>> expression Trust Framework that I did not perceive. And it will be  
>> the same for many other expressions.
>
> Whereas I, on the other hand, naturally assumed that you did  
> appreciate that dimension and, as a consequence, was suspicious of  
> your intentions.  One more reminder that the noise to signal ratio  
> in email can be quite high!  I'd say that there was an inverse  
> relationship between evoking the trust framework and my  
> trust ...but that would be ironic, and they do warn us against  
> using irony in email.
>
>
>> This exemplifies the forumulation exercise we are confronted with  
>> for all issues we want to qualify as issues of common concern or  
>> interest. We must be able to formulate the topic in a way that is  
>> neutral and precise enough but does not presuppose a given  
>> approach or solution that all actors would not agree to at that  
>> stage. This is not a concession in advance - before meeting the  
>> devil :-). It is a sincere attempt to formulate a problem, in  
>> order to allow actors afterwards in the open debate to put forward  
>> their own viewpoint on the issue.
>
>  ...and the "case" of Norbert Bollow's need to use the issue to  
> defend the GPLv3 that immediately follows your comment illustrates  
> just how correct you are.
>
>
>>  Maybe even an even more concise formulation is sufficient, like :  
>> "Digital identity and privacy". My main intention was to link both  
>> elements in the formulation of the issue :
>> - because they are inextricably linked
>> - and because only privacy is mentionned in the Tunis Document
>
> Ralf, who makes the same point, provided me with references on that  
> link (2 books!).  So I'm in the process of thinking about this.  To  
> me, the conventional understandings of the issue of privacy  
> automatically tends to mask the more important quality of  
> autonomy.  What is interesting is that, at the leading edge of  
> thinking about protocols and code for the use of digital identity,  
> there does seem to be a rough census in agreement with that point.   
> If so, then the potential to intrude a different kind of reality  
> into the IGF process about what the Internet is and does is quite  
> substantial.
>
>
>> I hope this brings another rock in the chaos you mentionned :-)  
>> and am ready to help formulate further this critical issue.
>
> This raises a serious sub-problem (or as they say in north america,  
> "opportunity") of the problem.  I'm still recovering from the shock  
> that the statement of the issue actually raised a thread of  
> support!  I too would like to stay [be?] involved.  But Robert  
> Guerre's post today on "workshops on user-centric identity" is a  
> reminder that there's an actual community of practice in existence  
> on the issue (of which I am NOT a member, merely an observer who  
> happened to drop by and remained curious).  To the best of my  
> knowledge, that community has no idea yet that IGC is discussing  
> the issue as an IGF agenda topic.  Somehow, we have to make our  
> [focus?] on THEIR issue known to them.  I'm sure we have people who  
> have a foot in both worlds, but I don't yet know who they are.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance