[governance] Evidence-based policy-making and impact assessments for Internet-related policies

Mawaki Chango kichango at gmail.com
Thu Jun 20 08:05:39 EDT 2013


Norbert,

I am not sure I clearly understand the purpose of the Wisdom Task Force
proposal you referred to in your message below. Is it guidance for members
of parliaments and their staff when developing policies? Is there a
geographical scope implied (eg, EU)?  Is there a connection with policy
research and evaluation, in terms or methods or otherwise? What's next?
Will a (multistakeholder) group be formed to follow-up on this? How did you
come up with the list of WGs?

Thanks

Mawaki



On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote on Mon, 29 Apr 2013:
>
> > I wonder whether there is a need to introduce specific guidelines /
> > methodologies to assess the impact of Internet-related policies
> > (which I define on the fly as "policies (including regulation, soft
> > law, research activities) which either impact on, or are impacted by,
> > the Internet).
>
> Sorry that I'm only now getting around to responding to the very
> important and interesting questions that you're raising... hopefully
> I'm not too late and the topic is still of interest,
>
> > Questions that come to my mind:
> >
> > - is the Internet an important enough phenomenon / infrastructure to
> > justify having specific methodologies to assess the impact of
> > policies on it, and its impact on policies?
>
> I would respond to this question with a clear yes, but more
> importantly, it is becoming increasingly impossible to separate the
> Internet, and what it enables, from what used to be the offline world
> but isn't so offline anymore.
>
> I would argue that this causes significant aspects of the traditional
> ways of thinking about public policy and about the corresponding legal
> frameworks to be not suitable for todays's world. Many if the
> underlying heuristics and assumptions are not valid anymore.
>
> > - are existing methodologies (e.g. concerning the impact on ICT or
> > telecommunication networks generically) enough to cover this need?
>
> No... those methodologies may be less badly outdated than what experts
> on legal systems (the lawyers) learn during their studies, but the
> world is changing so quickly nowadays that all existing methodologies
> are already outdated by the time that they're recognized as “existing
> methodologies”. What we now need is analytical methods that are updated,
> through an appropriate multistakeholder process, in real time, as the
> world is changing.
>
> > - which kind of basic questions should one ask when assessing the
> > impact of Internet-related policies?
>
> The same kind of questions that have always been appropriate to ask for
> proposals of any kind: What is the intended effect? What is the cost?
> How likely is it that the intended effect will be achieved? What are
> the risks in regard to negative side-effects? How can those risks be
> managed or mitigated? What is the potential cost of mitigation measures
> that may be needed? What negative side-effects are likely to remain
> after any mitigation measures? Is, in view of all of the risks and
> costs, the proposed measure worthwhile?
>
> > - which kind of methodological tools (and from which disciplines)
> > should one consider when performing such impact assessment?
>
> I find the "logical thinking process" tools of Goldratt's Theory of
> Constraints to be highly helpful for all kinds of analysis and
> deliberation in complex systemic contexts. See e.g.:
>
>   H. William Dettmer:
>   The Logical Thinking process. A Systems Approach to Complex Problem
>   Solving.
>   Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2007 (Quality Press)
>   ISBN 978-0-87389-723-5
>
> On top of that I believe that we need an international multistakeholder
> process to develop more specific analysis methodologies, to keep them
> up to date, and to apply them to current policy challenges. That is a
> primary objective of the Wisdom Task Force proposal
> http://WisdomTaskForce.org/RFB/1
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
> --
> Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC:
> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130620/644e6cfd/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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


More information about the Governance mailing list