[discuss] List announcement "robust governance in the digital age"

Mon Feb 10 15:22:15 UTC 2014

On 10 Feb 2014, at 7:29 pm, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

> David,
> 
> I am interested in an off-topic issue which is how to be make any online supported MS process inherently robust. The ICANN process is a pionneer among the many processes to consider. It may turn to be helpful as good example. In this case you will be conforted. It may also turn to be helpful as a bad example. In that case you will know better how to confort it.

	I've begun writing (though I was going to hold off a day or so to give people a chance to subscribe) messages broadly suggesting that ICANN is a good example to emulate in terms of transparency, but generally not a good example in terms of accountability. 

> This list is about a particular case, in a given context, with identified people and structures, and a precise task. The other list is about a general case, in an undefined contexte, with non identified people and structures, and an undefined task. It seems that your concern is like saying why not also discuss oceans when discussing my way to drink my glass of water.

	I thought this list was at least in part to broadly discuss substantive policy proposals, such as George Sadowsky's (very helpful) discussion of particular problems. So I don't think it would be off-topic here. 

> Or is it that your experience of ICANN let you suspect that ICANN violates some of the rules for a robust governance in the digital age?

	I find ICANN's accountability mechanisms quite lacking. I'm sure George Sadowsky and other ICANN board members can tell you that thrice-yearly session NCUC members, usually including me, complain to the board about accountability mechanisms with depressing regularity. 
	There have been some interesting suggestions raised regarding them recently, such as the idea of citizen juries from the ICANN strategic panel on Multistakeholder innovation, that I think are worth discussing, and it is also worth looking at which of the existing mechanisms work or do not and can potentially be improved, and which are just inappropriate in the current context. 

> In that case everyone should be happy because we would "scientifically" know how to make ICANN work better (I accept that it would be to the detriment of the status-quo). So, unless your priority is such a status-quo, what do you fear? No one should be on that new list to defend a position, everyone should be there to explore and research for the common good.

	I fear, as I have said before, that strategic changes of discussion forum and group, along with focus on revisiting adminstrative processes rather than substantive discussion, create innefficiency and confusion, and have a strong potential to slow us down, when we have a very short amount of time to produce a lot of substantive work. 
	I would not say I am invested in either the ICANN status quo, or not - I'm essentially far too involved in ICANN to consider it as a unitary thing that is either good or bad. There are aspects and parts of ICANN that I think do very valuable work, and parts I think are quite poor and need to be fixed, and parts in between - and one of the aspects of ICANN that I do like is its willingness to review itself and evolve, thus giving those of us who find it lacking some hope it may improve. 

	Cheers

		David 
> 
> M G
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:34 10/02/2014, David Cake wrote:
> 
>> On 10 Feb 2014, at 4:50 pm, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > So -- David would rather it not feed back from a group that has these
>> > concerns, and volunteers to subscribe in order to interject his.
>> > disagreement with Michael Gurstein's framing.
>> 
>>        I do have significant interest and experience the target in dealing with transparency and accountability in an Internet governance context (ICANN in particular), and I have a genuine interest in contribution to informed and useful policy discussion wherever it takes place. I personally think that it would be more productive if discussed with the broast range of participants, but I'll participate in discussion of these important issues wherever it takes place.
>>        I do find Michael's framing of the issue unhelpful, but I remain confident that useful discussion of the issues may take place regardless, as long as focus on the issues of accountability and transparently. I think if the mailing list remains focussed on Michael'c contention that those 'here' (in which I include those who, like myself, are involved in IG MS policy development processes through ICANN, RIRs, etc) are naive dupes who foolishly believe all MS processes to be populated by well-meaning altruists, and are unaware of the threat of capture, it will be lose what chance it has of making a valuable contribution.
>> 
>>        My primary objection is simply the idea that creating new fora, with separate membership and subscription processes etc, is a productive strategy. I think accountability and transparency are of sufficient importance that they should be of broad interest to anyone interest to most, if not all, of those on this list.
>> 
>> > One thing is, this
>> > might trigger discussion here or on robustgov.
>> 
>>        I consider the possibility of triggering discussion here less valuable as on outcome than actual policy discussion here.
>> 
>> > I however freely participate on either list and don't have this
>> > quixotic view opposing the very notion of an independently established
>> > list for discussion among people who have a common concern!  :-)
>> 
>>        Some say quixotic, some just call it trying to optimise the value of our discussion.
>>        Cheers
>> 
>>                David
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > Seth
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:18 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> >>        While I've subscribed to this list as its creation seems a fait accompli, I have absolutely no idea why this topic was considered apparently off-topic for this (or other IG focussed) list(s), and I think the idea of narrowly focussed mailing lists for particular policy issues to be an extremely poor choice of strategy for facilitating effective and inclusive policy discussion. At best it runs the danger of limiting discussion to a small number of particularly engaged participants, removing the participation of those who might have significant contributions to make but are not sufficiently focussed on that issue to join a new mailing list. At worst, it focusses discussion on a self-selected group of participants who agree with the initial framing on the issue.
>> >>        FWIW, I'm joining this list particularly because I disagree with the framing presented by Michael Gurstein presented below, and believe that a discussion consisting only of those who agreed with that framing, but that could be plausibly presented as an outcome of the 1net community, would be counter-productive.
>> >>        Regards
>> >>
>> >>                David
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 10 Feb 2014, at 3:38 am, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> hereby I to announce the creation of a new public discussion mailing
>> >>> list on the topic of how to make Internet governance structures (and
>> >>> also governance structures for other global concerns) robust against
>> >>> capture and other forms of undue influence by special interests.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov
>> >>>
>> >>> This is going to be a topically narrow mailing list, and I'm going to
>> >>> actively manage it to ensure that it stays that way and that it has an
>> >>> excellent signal to noise ratio.
>> >>>
>> >>> The creation of this list was inspired significantly by a posting by
>> >>> Michael Gurstein on the IGC and BestBits mailing lists (quoted in full
>> >>> below) in which he observes that in many discussions of Internet
>> >>> governance structures, there is a naïve and dangerous implicit
>> >>> assumption denying the possibility of "significant, well-funded, very
>> >>> smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to ... ensure the
>> >>> dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests".
>> >>>
>> >>> Greetings,
>> >>> Norbert
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
>> >>>>   the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly
>> >>>> take these realities of particular interests (which are often in
>> >>>> conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning
>> >>>>> Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I'm
>> >>>>> struck by one overwhelming observation...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with
>> >>>>> respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions)
>> >>>>> are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors
>> >>>>> (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and
>> >>>>> the well-being of the Internet.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance
>> >>>>> structure and that proposal for the "management of decision
>> >>>>> making through MSism" all are making the completely unwarranted
>> >>>>> and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there
>> >>>>> are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely
>> >>>>> unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
>> >>>>> ensure the dominance of their own
>> >>>>> corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever
>> >>>>> emerges from whatever process.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very seriously
>> >>>>> unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures
>> >>>>> can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail...
>> >>>>> that these processes are not captured and subverted... i.e. what
>> >>>>> are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that
>> >>>>> "we" (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are
>> >>>>> promoting.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
>> >>>>> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be
>> >>>>> impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and
>> >>>>> the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the
>> >>>>> responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to
>> >>>>> support one's own narrow (corporate/national/institutional )
>> >>>>> interests and what the significance of this observation has to
>> >>>>> be for these discussions and their outputs.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple
>> >>>>> common sense.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been
>> >>>>> telling us?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> M
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> discuss mailing list
>> >>> discuss at 1net.org
>> >>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> discuss mailing list
>> >> discuss at 1net.org
>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140210/2d5d242c/signature.asc>