[governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net

[michael gurstein]

Tks George,

 

Responses inline

 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM
To: gurstein michael
Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com; Civil IGC Society Internet
Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net

 

Michael,

 

We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken introduced
us virtually at least 10 years ago.   I think that we can count on an
adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this conversation.

[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never put his
very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to Telecom
regulatory matters to work in these areas :) 

 

First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net, although I
was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that provided people to
the 1net steering committee.  I admit that I don't understand the exact
mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we differ as it doesn't bother
me.  Here is why.

[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered by" not
understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the non-acceptance that
we should and have a right to knowledge/understanding about that process..
1Net is important and potentially (based on the aspirations that some
including yourself below have expressed for it), very important, and thus
there is a requirement for full transparency in this and other areas

 

Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder
groups, but not between them.  Ultimately, this is not productive; it
results in multiple echo chambers  - the image that comes to mind is of
different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in London,
all preaching to the (semi-) converted.  In one form or another, the 1net
list had to happen and should have happened.  We should thank its
originators.  It is a meeting place, with no content except that which we
contribute to it.

[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you.  But 1Net has
demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a "meeting
place". 

                1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for
it's Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by
what process and who had input into this process and by what authorization
did they act in this way--without attributing any bias or other criticism do
you see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to
ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into
this process of inclusion/exclusion

                2.   it designated certain participants as interlocutors for
it's selection of representation on various of its Committees etc.
interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by what
process and who had input into this process and by what authorization did
they act in this way--again without attributing any bias or other criticism
do you  see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to
ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into
this process of inclusion/exclusion

                3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of
discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without
attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other criticism do
you see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to
ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into
this process

                4. it expended resources in designing and producing  a set
of Forums and an associated website--who provided and directed those
resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or
interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be
publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
deliberately or otherwise built into this process

 

Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture?  You express
concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved
or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the
on-going discussion."  I understand your concern, but each stakeholder group
is represented o that committee, and if there were any such concerns, would
they not be reported out?  Can we not let the process continue and extract
value from it, and let the presence of representatives on the committee deal
with such a concern?

[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the information
requested above was available either internally or externally we have no
evidence on the basis of which to make judgments as to whether it is
reasonable to let the process continue and extract value from it" and given
the lack of information concerning the #1 above we again do not have
sufficient information to " let the presence of representatives on the
committee deal with such a concern", particularly since concerns have been
expressed with respect to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent
selection processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups
represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector).

 

Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of  ideas
to the Brazil meeting.  I think that is not correct.  Brazil apparently
wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting, and it chose 1net.
I suspect that in part it did to want to be the arbiter of independent
streams of information and requests form multiple groups, some of which were
contesting the legitimacy of others.  I don't blame them; they want to work
for solutions, not solve representational disputes.

[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was both
"interposed" and "interposed itself" and my concern and desire for
information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net "interposed
itself" and thus information concerning the background to 1Net should be
made available.

 

IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the
Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems
accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they must
meet.  

[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do "define
existing problems accurately" and in a manner that is not otherwise
structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by overt action) or
implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate, discussion and output
as for example, through the exclusion of certain voices or the undue
promotion of other voices; or through the introduction of latent
"filtering/framing" of discussion as for example, in the manner in which
discussion is "Summarized" or in how discussion is channeled into certain
directions through the design of a pattern of "Forums"). Surely you agree
that full disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability
governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about such
possible bias.

 

I don't see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas
emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to
discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG
discussion.  

[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above

 

Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any kind
as input to its conference, directly without passing through 1net, by the
beginning of March.  1net is not in any way transmitting or filtering this
input (nor should it).

[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a substantive and
significant role as "Summarizing" and "framing through Forums" certain
inputs into this process and it is in this that I am suggesting the
requirement  for transparency 

 

All stakeholder groups are in this together.  We want an Internet that is
stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or outright
capture by any sectoral interest.  

[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the process to
ensure that there is full transparency and accountability within stakeholder
groups (which was not evident within the CS stakeholder group for example)
and within the stakeholder collaboration processes (such as 1Net)
themselves. 

 

As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups start off
in the process with more influence and resources than others and thus (to go
back to Anne's question where all of this started) among the greatest tools
to ensure against such "capture by any sectoral interest" is full
transparency and accountability through appropriate and inclusive
structures-which is what I would think we would all be striving for. 

 

We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable
collations, and we won't get those solutions unless we come up with good
ideas and discuss/debate them.  

[MG>] agreed

 

Negativity really does';t help.  

[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for reasonable
disclosure/transparency.  This only leads to further distrust and an
undermining of these necessary processes that you are pointing to.

 

We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.  Can't we
just use it and concentrate upon ideas?

[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary to ensure
that it is not, as the "agora*"  started out i.e. a place where "free-born
male land-owners who were citizens would gather in the agora for military
duty or to hear statements of the ruling king or council" but rather is,  as
it later became, "a marketplace where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell
their goods (MG: "and ideas") and the best way to ensure that the agora is
the latter and not the former,  is full transparency as to processes and
inputs. 

 

And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you who is
as you say " not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net" and not
from 1Net itself, who could as I've said repeatedly end this discussion once
and for all by spending no more than one or two hours in responding to a set
of questions which any "public" and publically accountable process would
find completely normal and acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my
auditor's hat) suggests that perhaps there is something to hide which the
responsible parties are unwilling to disclose.

 

Mike

 

George

 

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

 

> I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one hand
extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while declaiming on
the possibility of "capture", and then refusing to support its application
in the concrete; talking about the application of Transparency to
multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and not supporting it when
it is suggested for an immediate and significant application and one
moreover which is impacting on current CS activities and outputs.

>  

> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation
that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil
meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the
crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to
inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute minimum that would be
expected from any public body or agency. And certainly it would appear that
many of the folks in this discussion not only are seeing MS structures such
as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, they are seeing them as central
public bodies in the Internet public policy space.

>  

> Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two
required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources and
procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to assure all
and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved
or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the
on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those opposing this absolutely minimum
measure afraid of what might be revealed.

>  

> It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering
Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for example, by
giving instances of how they were consulted in the contracting of the
"Summary" and the design of the "Forums" and the "Forums website". This
would go some way in providing assurance of at least a certain degree of
internal transparency.

>  

> If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely resisted
by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is there that there
will be any effective oversight or overwhelming insistence on Transparency
and Accountability for the more elaborate and complex MS processes which are
so widely and loudly being touted by one and all and including so many
involved in this discussion.

>  

> M  

>  

 

<<trimmed>>

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/9813818c/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