[governance] Broader commercialization concerns (was Re: Update from today's MAG call)

[JFC Morfin]

Hi! Norbert,

We broadly agree on many points. However, my background is "agoric"
(i.e. the dynamic convergence of the logic diversity maintaining
emergences). This polylectic way of thinking you need when confronted
to many or myriads of parameters.

- It was the technical philosophy of the Tymnet technology and policy
that we used to teach and deploy the international network services,
support OSI, and welcome TCP/IP during its first decade (1977/1986).
Therefore, I saw it at work, both in the technical and political area,
and supported its (national, corporate, individual) use.

- It is the necessary approach of the internet multilingualization
that we confirmed with IDNA (RFC 5890/95) as an example of the way the
internet architecture supports diversity by subsidiarity – something
its community has not digested yet, but technically flourishes with
the architectural patches that are the Web, IDNA, apps, etc.

- etc.

In such thinking, common to statistical physics and centuries of
philosophy and currently forgotten by financial analysts, nothing can
be considered as a separate issue. Our period makes this especially
clear with the network meshing and the time contraction due to digital
processing.

However, the fundamentality of the necessary changes deters us
from switching from democratic votes, specialized dialogue, and
dialectic reasoning (moreover, they have also to digest monolectic
efficiency [cybernetics]), even if we know we are wrong. We,
therefore, prefer not to deeply investigate and consider the
networking relations, rather than to explore today's reality of our
polycratic open multilogue (everyone talking with everyone). Alvin
Toffler gave our syndrome a name in 1970: "Future shock: stress from
too much change in too short a period of time".

There is no "plot". There are long/medium term evolutions of the
universe mechanism, we can influence by the right small moves, at
the right time.

Obviously everything has a cost. However, it has to be evaluated in
using a common independent metric. Relativity is that everyone has
his/her independent metric.

This is why:
- either there is a need for a conversion between the metrics of
nature, humanity, and reality.
- or there is  no conversion (i.e. I cannot exchange an idea against a
hotel room), but there are cross areas of mutual assistance: civil
society leaders may be invited by sponsors and govs may help research,
in the same way that FLOSS makes Apache available to everyone for free.

Best
jfc

At 10:42 01/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>Hi Jefsey
>
>I see the scandal around that Bali IGF fundraising doc and the concerns
>which you have been raising about "OpenStand" (which I certainly share)
>as separate issues which this in common that they are in my view both
>part of a very dangerous pattern of various attacks against the
>principle that public policy questions should be decided in a
>democratic manner rather than in a commercialized market-driven manner.
>
> > -  The point here is not logos/banners (this is already the on-line
> > case: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/funding/86-donors).
>
> From my perspective, the point in regard to the Bali IGF fundraising
>doc is about how various aspects of the environment in which public
>policy processes take place subconsciously influence the participants
>in the public policy processes.
>
>Leaving aside for a moment the question whether private sector
>donations are an acceptable funding strategy for public policy
>processes in the first place: If donations are accepted then it is
>of course appropriate to make them transparent and to give the sponsors
>the kind of recognition that they are currently given on the IGF
>website, and the example that Markus gave about one situation where
>sponsors' banners were put up outside the venue of the UN event but so
>that they were visible from the cafeteria is also ok from my
>perspective.
>
>The flood of commercial messaging that the Indonesian fundraising team
>had planned would however have profoundly influenced the total
>atmosphere of the event, and I am glad that the UN has put their foot
>down and said "no go".
>
>Even more serious is the aspect that --even if in a limited way--
>speaking slots were offered in exchange for money. The document did
>explicitly not offer to sell panelist speaking slots, but it did
>contain the following offers: For private sector sponsors: "Major
>sponsors may recommend speaker(s) for the closing ceremony." For
>government sponsors: "Major sponsors may lead a session in the IGF and
>be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events.”
>
> > -  The point is about the ongoing research that is needed to further
> > the evolution of the Internet.
>
>I agree that the point about "OpenStand" which you are emphasizing is a
>legitimate and important one.
>
> > 2005 WSIS Tunis Agenda has mandated the IGF to be principally a
> > discussion forum to facilitate a multilogue among stakeholders and
> > "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the
> > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
> > recommendations". Reasonnable corporate influence, pressure and
> > lobbying is legitimate. What is a fault is the lack of governments
> > (and their international organizations) funding and civil-society non
> > commercial voluntary work coordination.
>
>The Tunis Agenda mandate for the IGF also specifies that the IGF shall
>be "democratic". From that perspective, it is IMO a clear no-go to give
>corporations power to exert pressure (such power is there automatically
>when an event depends on voluntary private sector funding) while public
>interest representatives don't have any comparable kind of power.
>
>On this basis it is my view that the IGF should be funded from the UN
>budget together with the host country governments. Private sector
>donations should be neither solicited nor accepted.
>
>Let's face it, developing global public policy and doing that in an
>appropriate way costs money. Ultimately that cost is borne by the
>population of the world, regardless of whether the money is extracted
>say through taxation of corporations and it then goes towards the UN
>budget, or if the corporations sponsor those UN events that they wish
>to support. In both cases the money is ultimately paid by consumers as
>part of the price of services rendered. The difference is just that for
>one of the funding paths it is *possible* to organize it in accordance
>with democratic principles.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t