[governance] IG: constitution and participation

[Mawaki Chango]

Vittorio,

> On the other hand, "non insiders" have to realize that when
> they show up for the first time to a new place and think to 
> know it all, possibly they should rather spend some time in 
> learning why the things that look so wrong to them were done 
> that particular way.

And must do, as they have common sense and some amount of
reason. I for sure take time to listen and eventually "take off"
in a new setting for a new endeavor. It even occurs soemtimes
that I receive signs of impatience from those who happen to rely
on me to represent or echo their views.

But it's not as if the "non insider" (= not only new comer, but
not from the dominant/mainstream perspectives) necessary knows
nothing about broader policy principles that are relevant across
sectors; nothing (by experience or otherwise, outside the
framing on the agenda of a specific circle) about the issues
being dealt with, or others that should be dealt with. That
should be good enough ground for meaningful participation
without, as Willie suggests below, waiting to be totally
assimilated in and with the mainstream.

Most importantly, reputation is nececcarily based on a shared
sense of what is _quality_ contribution; what is worthy, and
what is considered disruptive, or more precisely, diverting from
what is perceived as worthy? At that level, it takes more than
the learning time (and curve) you're suggesting for building
reputation. Obviously, that shared sense of what is worthy
conditions also who join, in the first place.

But please note that I'm not presenting this as an easy problem
to solve; I don't think there would ever be perfect rules to
resolve this. Just that there may be better ways to prevent
unwanted or illegitimate capture. To that effect, it is
necessary not only to frame right from the inception of the
organization and during the design process, its values and
mission in terms that speak to the widest possible
constituencies it purports to serve; necessary not only to keep
its processes open for wide as much participation; but also
crucial to keep _visible_ by design the loci and guises of those
possible threats to fairness, flaws and limitations in order to
give the community the capability to control to the maximum
extent possible their detrimental effects. 

Mawaki
 
--- wcurrie at apc.org wrote:

> That seems to imply that the Icann environment is opaque and
> dependent on complex relationships that are not transparent or
> based on criteria that meet certain standards of
> administrative fairness, criteria that should be simple,
> staightforward and not mystifying, that should be visible to
> insiders and non-insiders alike.
> 
> Reputation is all very well in business and politics but not
> when it comes to public policy and matters of regulation in
> the public interest. The danger lies in the phenomenon of
> group think. And the development of an elite priesthood who
> protect their knowledge and status.
> 
> This is why there is no answer on the issue of administrative
> fairness, suggestions of an administrative procedures act or a
> framework convention, even though the latest MoU between the
> USG and Icann requiress steps to be taken with respect to
> administraive procedures and accountability.
> 
> Inevitably, in this kind of system non-insiders are perceived
> as the barbarians at the gates...who must be resisted by all
> means necessary...or tamed and incorporated into the elite...
> 
> The issue remains that a claim was made by Icann during the
> debate on governance at WSIS that the system of managing
> critical internet resources "ain't broke' so there is no 'need
> to fix it' and that Icann was involved in technical matters
> not public policy. The practice adopted by Icann in the .xxx
> decision demonstrates at least to non-insiders that both
> claims were false. Icann insiders don't see this or in some
> cases act hysterically to criticism. This seems to confirm a
> diagnosis of group think inside Icann's castle of smoke and
> mirrors.
> 
> Willie
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu>
> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:47:09 
> To:Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com>
> Cc:governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder
> <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] IG: constitution and participation
> 
> Mawaki Chango ha scritto:
> > as non-issue? There are so many venues a "non insiders" may
> > appear and make an otherwise crucial point (at least from
> their
> > worldview) and just be met by a polite smile, without
> anybody
> > addressing, following up or taking up the issue. 
> 
> You're right, but that's just true of any social system, more
> or less. 
> Reputation (as opposed to titles of various kind) is the major
> source of 
> credibility over the Internet, and you have to build it with
> care (and 
> it takes time) whenever you show up in a new circle. I don't
> see how you 
> could route around this, especially in relatively informal,
> discussion- 
> and consensus-based environments.
> 
> On the other hand, "non insiders" have to realize that when
> they show up 
> for the first time to a new place and think to know it all,
> possibly 
> they should rather spend some time in learning why the things
> that look 
> so wrong to them were done that particular way. I've never
> been 
> sympathetic to the "we did it so we know better" argument that
> some old 
> Internet engineers use to criticize proposals that they don't
> like, but, 
> at the same time, there is value in listening and learning
> from history.
> -- 
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu  
> <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ 
> <--------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance