[governance] WisdomTF (was Re: Evidence-based policy-making and impact assessments for Internet-related policies)

[Norbert Bollow]

Hi Mawaki - good to hear from you!

Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not sure I clearly understand the purpose of the Wisdom Task
> Force proposal you referred to in your message below.

To facility good, globally coordinated governance for global issues.

One way that WisdomTF can be described is “an IETF for global policy
issues”. IETF develops technical specifications which are implemented
by the people who develop the software and hardware that makes the
Internet work. WisdomTF will develop recommendation documents on
global public policy matters, with the aim of informing national
parliamentary decision-making processes.

> Is it guidance
> for members of parliaments and their staff when developing policies?

Yes, and for members of the media and the general public too.

I hope that eventually it will be political suicide to simply ignore
the insights and recommendations of the relevant WisdomTF documents. :-)

> Is there a geographical scope implied (eg, EU)?

The intended geographical scope is global, since global concerns
should really be addressed globally, and everyone worldwide (or at
least everyone who is able to access the Internet and to communicate
internationally, in writing) must be enabled to take part in the
deliberative processes. 

> Is there a
> connection with policy research and evaluation, in terms or methods
> or otherwise?

The idea is that WisdomTF output documents (which are intended to be 
input documents for national political process) should inform not only
about possible policy choices, but also about what is known about the
likely results of those policy choices. Hence where available, formal
outputs of policy research and evaluation should certainly be
referenced.

> What's next?

In the absence of funding, right now the idea is dormant waiting for me
to get to a point of having some time available for working on it...

> Will a (multistakeholder) group be formed to follow-up on this?

Ideally yes - I'm not sure yet though how to achieve that.

> How did you come up with the list of WGs?

No real process -- just pondering about what are some important
topics for which it might be relatively easy to reach critical mass.

Greetings,
Norbert

> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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