[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

[Mawaki Chango]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:06 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the
> "technical" community.
> > Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs
> earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing.
> >
> > McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it
> say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means
> "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore,
> I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but
> I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was
> also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of
> Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative
> tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into
> seeing those norms upheld.
> >
> > Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best
> interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me
> since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that
> designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly,
> so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's
> no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and
> accurate user guide for... users!
>
> There are also inherent limits what can be accomplished based on
> principles which
> are basically voluntary in nature.  For example, even if there were
> common, global
> agreement on social norms regarding unsolicited commercial email, the
> mechanisms
> that would be provided from an entirely techno-centric Internet
> cooperation system
> would be limited to various voluntary measures of increasing complexity,
> in the typical
> "arms race" of increasing subterfuge and improved detection and
> mitigation.  These
> not really a solutions at all, just a sequence of coping strategies which
> result in
> increasing costs and pain for the users.
>
> Whereas, if there were a common and global agreement on acceptable social
> norms in
> this area (hypothetically), and given engagement of all parties (including
> governments),
> there likely would be far superior mechanisms available which provide a
> higher level of
> assurance and lower costs to users globally.
>
> i.e. it is not at all clear that an Internet limited solely to voluntary
> technical mechanisms
> (and based on the technical communities particular sense of social norms)
> can actually
> elevate itself to the global platform for enabling social and economic
> benefits that that
> mankind actually deserves...
>

I cannot agree with you more. Case in point: governments have been stepping
in one way or the other, including in the United States of America of all
places, to back the effort of establishing authentication and identity
management mechanisms on the Internet with the force of the "full faith and
credit" (my adapted characterization) which only they can wield at the
scale of large populations of private citizens and individual users.

mawaki


>
> > .. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from
> "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of concern to
> CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter.
>
> Agreed.   I would hope that a "techno-centric" shift is _not_ what is
> occurring via the
> "coalition initiative" discussed yesterday, but also believe that healthy
> skepticism
> (plus a willingness to constructively engage) is quite prudent whenever
> faced with any
> situation of high ambiguity.  My best wishes to civil society in your
> efforts to engage
> and clarify things, as it is my hope that we are simply seeing the
> consequences of a
> fast-moving and dynamic situation (as opposed to actual departure from
> basic values
> of open and equal participation that are necessary for legitimacy of such
> an initiative.)
>
> /John
>
> Disclaimers:  My views alone (and I may have had my membership in the
> Church of
>                     Technological Utopianism revoked as a result of
> sending this email ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131023/9bdeb3bc/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