[governance] Inquiry for a new vision into the future of IGC

[Mawaki Chango]

Thank you Mehrzad, Baudouin, Deirdre and all.

First of all, anything I have said or asked for in this thread was not
about "the civil society" but about a particular entity called the Internet
Governance Caucus which we are part of -- its mission and structure in the
future.

I am happy to be disagreed with especially by someone who can aptly help
translate ideas from one particular "language" to another I and most people
can comprehend, and more particularly into items that address the question
asked.

JFC, my understanding of your notion of achitectonic is that it is the
fundamental part of all architectures (like in the French notion of
"science fondamentale" vs "science appliquee") and thus architectonic
provides the basis for all things architecture. It is in this generic sense
that I used the terms architecture or architects, encompassing
architectonic and all particular architectures.

What I meant to say about this not being about any particular substantive
issue is that we're first concerned about method: a method to get IGC to a
place where it can productively discuss about specific questions/
substantive issues and make contributions.

Thank you for the opinion you have offered. My broader take is that you can
still make it easier for me and the IGC to put it to good use. Many of us
here are not professionally retired yet, still have a full- and over-time
day job far from the email exchanges and discussions we're having here, a
family to juggle with, errands to run, shopping to do, etc. etc. So I would
really appreciate if posting authors make a sincere and stubborn effort to
translate their ideas into a message any one who can read would understand
(not just the words individually but the actual notions behind them and the
message overall.)

And please let us remember that this is not the technical community
engaging in civic action but more of a group of ordinary citizens and end
users who are concerned about policy and social implications of IG
processes and decisions. Let's speak to this audience and spare each other
self-coined acronyms and neologisms as well as heavily technical acronyms
with no further explanation than a reference to whole wiki articles before
one can make sense of what is being said. I've been to the French school
and I've been to the American school; I know the difference between both
and more importantly I know it is possible to transition from one to the
other. This is a global and very diverse audience, including people for
whom English is a second, third or even fourth language in terms of
mastery. (So in these public communications, let us not apply any version
of Umberto Eco's precept, who said he writes his first 100 pages to select
his readers: readers who can get through those first hundred are the ones
who deserve to embark with him on the journey of his novels... although I
personally enjoy reading him.)

>From your first message in this thread, JFC, I got the notion (among
others, although I may still be wrong on this one) that according to you
we'd rather operate by members teaming up around subject clusters (rather
than geographic subdivisions, as Baudouin's reading). But I still wonder
how do we do it so as to get the buy-in of the IGC body and its endorsement
of the outputs. I also got those high-flying ideas (and God knows I can be
very theoretical myself!) re-interpreted for us by Deirdre. But my
frustration remains -- Now what? Is IGC just a place to discuss ideas,
concepts and theories/visions about Internet & society? Wasn't it you JFC
who were making distinction between "reality" (which we have to deal with
as is) and "blablabla"? Well our "reality" in this discussion, our datum in
the sense of the given "reality" we have to work on here is this:

_Working and operating procedures we can put in place in order to get IGC
to become again a credible CS umbrella entity in IG it once was and to be
able to work collaboratively and effectively again in order to produce
acceptable and accepted outputs for policy decisions on IG._

I am not just asking for a vision or a concept note, but more importantly
specific propositions of action items or changes (reform) that will need to
be made to IGC structure and modus operandi. At any rate, I would ask
anyone keen to formulate a vision (which is a good and I understand may be
necessary) to go further and formulate (in plain language) also the action
items that we should derive from that vision and make it effective.

I wouldn't have started this thread had I not noticed or acknowledged that
the reality we're facing is itself evolving and that IGC has some challenge
living up to its charter or mission. Make sense?

I do not wish to regulate any path (as you're presuming) as much as I wish
to know whether once we identify issues, emergent or otherwise, we believe
we can work together and develop those common positions spoken about in our
charter - and how to do this most effectively. I accept any help for us to
understand the reality we have to work with - such as yours,- but I wish
for more: how meaningfully can we relate that to IGC's objectives and
translate that into actionable items for this Caucus, keeping in mind what
brought us here in the first place. How can we operationalize the whole
vision taking into account the present "reality" of this Caucus.

In your own words, "The work a very few of us engaged (fsp4net boot strap)
is rebuked because we do not have the same language." Hence the need to
craft a workable language for the many. We do not help our party nor do we
advance our cause when we stick to a self-gratifying language language
which some may understand but that many (and even among the former not all
will have the patience to read the message to the end.)

You say: "Your position consists in censoring the Internet governance
issues you do not think the others are able to discuss. This is embarassing
when they are fundamental. This makes the entire Caucus useless." Assuming
you're addressing me (otherwise that would be the authors of the IGC
mission statement, i.e. ultimately the whole IGC which voted for the
charter), No that's not my position; mine is that whatever the issues, one
should make every effort to put it within reach of CS for understanding and
consideration. I don't believe there are issues that are or should be of
concern for CS/end users/"civil users" as you put it somewhere and yet
those issues can only be made understandable to the very few. And if you
think as you say that we need first to comprehend the reality we're facing
before we can do anything about it (which perfectly makes sense) then you
need to be a pedagogue. I'm sure you can help us comprehend that reality,
I'm just not sure you're using the right language/pedagogy yet.

Anyway, after reading and writing all these emails, I would still want to
read Antoinette Rouvroy (thanks for the pointer) and other recent authors
whose writings can help us conceptualize on the broader scale of the human
journey the conditions of our digital time, or to revisit Rousseau, Kant,
Condorcet and the like in search of a new Enlightenment for this digital era --
a kind of reading that demands and deserves much more attention and effort.

Thanks,

Mawaki



 =================
Mawaki Chango, PhD
Founder and Owner
DIGILEXIS
http://www.digilexis.com
Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis



On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear JFC,
> In an earlier message Mawaki made the point that there is no particular
> reason for the co-coordinators to share the same perspective. I agree with
> him. The difficulties of electing co-ordinators if that was a requirement
> would be huge. I write this because I'm about to disagree with him :-)
>
> Your message seems to me to be offering us an analogy - the basic
> technical structure of the Internet as a model of what could be a
> "spiritual" structure for "end user governance". It reminds us that in the
> final analysis we are all "end users", all "civil society".  I got a bit
> lost towards the end because I'm not a technical person and don't think
> easily in technical terms. However I think I got the general drift - I hope
> I did because I think it's a wonderful idea.
>
> Trying to give context to a proposal elsewhere I used the sentence
> "Because it opens and facilitates possibilities for participation, the "way
> of the internet" is to allow us to be different together." I think your
> model would allow this.
>
> Societies, or as Garth Graham would prefer communities, form around trust.
> Members surrender a small part of their individuality - not their freedom,
> their individuality - for the benefits of belonging to the group. The
> surrender is what creates tolerance - it allows for "your way is right for
> you and my way is right for me and we can still be friends."
>
> It's a shame that tolerance and trust once lost are so difficult to find
> again. However at the level of individuals, one person at a time, although
> slow, it's possible.
>
> Thank you for your suggestion
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
>
>
> On 26 June 2014 17:34, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear JFC,
>>
>> Thank you for your elaboration, which I have read from first to last word
>> -- I am probably one of a few who take the trouble to read your messages
>> integrally. No offense but I am sorry to say this: I understand Foucault
>> (whom I can read and understand in original version without opening a
>> dictionary), including his translations in English, better than I
>> understand you.
>>
>> The IGC membership/audience is not one of network architects. This thread
>> was not meant to discuss any particular substantive issue, nor was it
>> intended to propose an alternate architecture to the Internet as we know it
>> or to the IG ecosystem for that matter. That might come some other time.
>> But for now, we only seek to figure out how to give a new breath to this
>> Caucus and enable it to work again collaboratively and productively in
>> order to remain relevant through its contributions when it comes to public
>> policy, societal and social implications of Internet governance. For
>> everyone's information, please see below an excerpt of the IGC Charter
>> regarding its mission and objectives.
>>
>> I would humbly advise you start from the TERMS of OUR question/problem
>> and try to guide us, using those terms and others as simple as those terms,
>> to the "promise land"  -- would be best if it is one that addresses our
>> concern -- even if such place may otherwise also be characterized through
>> your preferred architectonic lexicon. But starting from your universe and
>> its language really makes it quite impossible for most people to follow and
>> make something useful for them out of your contributions.
>>
>> I hope this group will still benefit from your ideas in words that the
>> least engaged of us can still process.
>> Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>> *Mission*
>>
>> The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum
>> for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society
>> contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to
>> provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion,
>> policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide
>> a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and
>> influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.
>>
>> *Objectives and Tasks*
>>
>> The objectives and tasks of the IGC are to:
>>
>> * Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on significant
>> developments impacting on Internet governance policies.
>> * Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever possible,
>> face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to Internet governance
>> policies from a civil society perspective.
>> * Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create informal
>> relationships with various CS groups and individuals with a direct interest
>> in Internet governance policies, including those involved in human rights,
>> ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global electronic
>> commerce, access to knowledge, and security.
>> * Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in
>> some aspect of Internet governance polices.
>> Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies with
>> similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at various forums
>> involved with Internet governance policies.
>> * For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes,
>> develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance
>> policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating
>> broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such
>> positions.
>> * Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of
>> Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that
>> is informed by the stated vision of the IGC.
>> * Collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of agreed
>> projects and policies towards better Internet governance.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:40 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Mawaki,
>>>
>>> let assume the WSIS achitectonic model (gov, private, international,
>>> civil) is right. A serious MSism needs to proceed by layers/planes/topics :
>>> politics, economy, technology, research, law, culture, etc. For each of
>>> these layer/plane/topic each MS group need to bring a balancing
>>> contribution that will contribute with its particular abilities, interests,
>>> working results, dynamism, ideas, innovation.
>>>
>>> From what we observe Govs are influenced by the USG, private sector by
>>> ICC, international by UN, i.e. three diversified layers/plans/topics
>>> leadership/facilitating dynamisms. Civil Society, for various good and bad
>>> reasons (including lack of money, lack of self-understanding of the
>>> differences between government of people, sales to markets, NGO crowds, and
>>> global complex multitude) has done quite nothing except focusing on human
>>> rights, mostly only talking about them.
>>>
>>> As a result every human knows now how to be influenced by machines, be
>>> commanded by govs, buy as a consumer, and wait for foreign help. We have
>>> all forget that we are those who build the world, help each others, are the
>>> govs and make the industry work. We forgot to contribute only complaining.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *How to correct this? *My understanding is that the WSIS model has
>>> three global and specialized classes (govs, business and NGOs) and one
>>> local and general one (Civil Society). We are at different granularity
>>> level. To obtain global peace Govs want to coordinate, business to compete,
>>> NGOs to help: we want to live in a resulting local peace we are to organize
>>> and consolidate in our own framework.
>>>
>>> If the others cannot network that peace, or need help, we have to weave
>>> it at our own level: we the people.
>>>
>>> This is why I think the solution is to come back to the network
>>> fundamentals (it being ARPANET, Tymnet,  Internet, UN, I*Core, etc.) : the
>>> networking we use must fit the networking we are given. Govs, business,
>>> International organizations try to build a top down solution: the nework of
>>> networks. We need to use our networks in it. This makes a simple model: the
>>> networks of the network of networks.
>>>
>>> This has a simple name which is called coalitions, alliances, peoples,
>>> nations, communities, collectivities, families, frienship, projects,
>>> persons, closed-user-groups, class/groups, etc. etc. in states, people and
>>> machines relations. In internet wording these are "entangled VGNs" (virtual
>>> global networks, or "open closed gardens"). They are the way we chose to
>>> stabilize our individual or  grouped optimization of our digitalities
>>> networking.
>>>
>>> You can call them the way you want if you are not pleased with the term.
>>> The important thing for each of us is the way we can build, govern and
>>> protect them..
>>>
>>> From my personal experience, we are right now
>>> - staturated at the states global VGN planes (US, CN, possibly Europe,
>>> etc.),
>>> - we are fed-up by the private global systems (edge providers,
>>> technology communities)
>>> - and uncertain about the states and private national VGNs
>>> (e-government, national franchising, e-commerce).
>>>
>>> Also, we are not ready at individual planes (still a lot of Libre
>>> solutions integration needed to ballance and interface with institutional
>>> and commercial propositions).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *The engaged necessary wining path *As a conquence, I think and try to
>>> experiment what is possible to do at the intermediate level of quarters,
>>> villages, valleys, etc. Where people share many different economic,
>>> political, cultural, family,etc. interests. This is why I am more
>>> interested in the "intelligent village on the information highways by
>>> everyone for everyone", because as Gene Gaines puts it: "we are the
>>> internet". In that context, the local VGN (virtual glocal network) become
>>> real stakeholders with the same power as the US VGN, with their own
>>> HomeRoot, SuperIANA, Happy-IPs. Not yet fully organized, tested, etc. But
>>> we have a few months before they try to flood the planet with their
>>> NTIACANN Love Story. In every plan preparation, a contingency plan is
>>> necessary. It is mine, and I suggest that the more we are the best it will
>>> be.
>>>
>>> Sorry if my project is in French. But links are also in English. I would
>>> like to fill  this page:
>>> http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d%27initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde
>>> <http://sv2b.net/index.php/Liste_d'initiatives_comparables_dans_le_monde>
>>> with links to local significative people's projects.
>>>
>>> The conceptual modem is simple:
>>>
>>> - a local physical meshed network offering fast and symetric connections
>>> (M&M model: masters with masters),
>>> - with SDN (software designed networking) connected through OPES (open
>>> pluggable edge services),
>>> - with a LISP IPv4 gateway relating with
>>>   --- other similar plateforms
>>>   --- or edge providers selected through the local/personal DNS through
>>> different technology network systems.
>>>   --- or regular current internet (default).
>>>
>>> Forget about ICANN, RIRs, IETF:
>>> - they only are interested in low grade (current non neutral QoS),
>>> - while our VGN layer (actually the missing OSI presentation layer six)
>>> can support
>>>   ---  local/global traffic optimization,
>>>   --- including CCN (content centered networking)
>>>   --- and active content intelligrams (intelligence)
>>>
>>> This is not big conceptual deal, except that we have to coordinate a
>>> myriad of solutions, make them compatible, etc. hence to be present as MS
>>> "inter-users" (i.e. talking together and not only having network access) in
>>> the normative assemblies. Standards are the way we are governed. Time has
>>> come for norms to be part of political parties projects. What is to be our
>>> society: power, money, machine, people centered ?
>>>
>>> If we are not member of the resulting MS debate and running code/leaving
>>> mode experimentation, never mind, the result will be the same (digital
>>> world equilibrium) after some more delays and clashes. Scientifically this
>>> is named "self-ordering criticality". "SOC" is the way the world works.
>>> Criticalities can be benign when people are smart, they can be wars when
>>> they are not.
>>>
>>> jfc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 14:01 26/06/2014, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Members,
>>>
>>> This is an informal inquiry I would like to launch to hear from IGC
>>> members or list subscribers and collect your ideas about where we should go
>>> from here, as the Internet Governance Caucus.
>>>
>>> Particularly, please share your thoughts as to whether, in this context
>>> of IG or Information Society more broadly, civil society needs an analogue
>>> to what ICC BASIS (
>>> http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/basis/) is doing for
>>> business, and if so, what this would need to be like.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your cooperation.
>>>
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140629/375c31f0/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