[governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net - We are Caesar Wife

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Umm, we are not Ceasar's Wife as we are not subordinate to the others as 
Ceasar's wife was to Ceasar.  I assume you meant Pompeia as she was the 
one he divorced with those words.

We need to be transparent and accountable because that is something that 
needs to be a default for all groups.  /1net could be much more 
voluntarily transparent and accountable.

I will not be joining the self-designated&appointed /1net Transparency 
and Accountability group, having just gotten off such an effort and 
found it to be exhausting and very time consuming to do a proper and 
neutral job of it. I wish you all the best of luck at achieving an 
outcome that others can look at and see as legitimate and useful.

avri



On 10-Feb-14 10:15, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
> Dear Civil Society Colleagues,
>
> The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who pepper
> the various governance lists and attend the conferences as
> representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above
> suspicion. We are Caesars wife
> <http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Caesar%27s+wife+must+be+above+suspicion>.
>
> A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent activities
> involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been resisted is
> confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not, our good work
> will take place under not in a cloud.
>
> Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the
> billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past our
> heritage.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Thomas Lowenhaupt
>
>
> On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>
>> 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 <gurstein at gmail.com
>> <mailto: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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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