[discuss] More on Internet technical community thoughts ...

[George Sadowsky]

Michael,

Thanks!  This is part of testing the hypothesis that stakeholder groups often talk past each other and not with each other.

1st quibble: I think I understand what you mean.  The IETF has surely spawned its own unique culture, and that has happened to some extent within most if not all of the organizations that cooperate to manage the Internet infrastructure.  Cultures do depend to a fair extent upon social norms being accepted by those in the community, an they evolve and the culture matures.  So, yes, certainly social relationships do play a part.  In fact, sometimes it’s the social relationship within the common culture that is the basis of trust between individuals and between organizations,rather than any formal structure.

2nd quibble: Your proposed change has merit for the reasons that you describe, and  I agree with the implication that you make.  However, if we are just concerned about the technical side of things, it may be a slight overreach for us to claim that it helps everyone.  I and speak only as far as the reach of the technical community goes, it’s accurate.  The vast majority would agree with you that it affects everyone, just a s the vat majority of the technical community would agree with the major precepts that underlie many civil society organizations.

Regards,

George

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

On Apr 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for this George… It is a good and useful and even laudable explanation and one whose content I would for the most part certainly endorse.  (Note that I am particularly heartened to see a careful delineation and limitation of the applicability of the multistakeholder model specifically to areas of technical decision making.
>  
> I only have two (what I hope) are quibbles.
>  
> The first is where you say “understand the global Internet as a complex interaction of technology, standards, implementation, operation and application”… I’m wondering (writing as a Sociologist) if you might not also want to include social relationships in your listing (perhaps it is assumed under “implementation” but if so, I think it should be disaggregated).  I say that because many of the kinds of activities which are being described as for example in the IETF processes are in considerable part “social” processes which are really only intelligible/reproducible etc. if one understands or at least considers the underlying social elements.
>  
> The second is this statement: “These characteristics are essential to the Internet’s past, present, and future success as a platform for advancing the economic and social well- being of all of its users.” Here, is there any reason to be inclusive only of the “economic and social well-being” of “users”… Maybe that is an oversight but I would have thought that being concerned with the economic and social well-being of everyone—users and non-users alike might be rather more in keeping with the somewhat idealistic tone of the rest of the statement.
> 
> The significance of the first quibble is that I think unless these processes that you are pointing to are also seen as having a social component there is an implicit assumption that the human element can be removed from the technical operation of the Internet which I’m quite sure (and I’m sure that you realize) is factually incorrect and which tends to narrow the range of issues and concerns which may be introduced into these types of discussions.  This isn’t to say that the social element is a dominant factor but simply to say that it is a factor and cannot and should not be overlooked.
> 
> The significance of the second quibble is that it is quite clear by now that virtually everyone in the world either directly or indirectly is being impacted by the Internet (or very soon will be). Thus to limit the range of the technical community’s concerns simply to “users” is to overly narrow the discussion and also to limit the framework of that concern to those elements that have to do with the immediate interaction between the individual or community and the technology (i.e. as a “user”). It is clear by now I would have thought, that the impact of, as well as opportunities from, the Internet are much much broader and more pervasive than can simply be encompassed by pointing to the technology/user element of the interaction…  (I’ve discussed this at some length in a blogpost… http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/internet-justice-a-meme-whose-time-has-come/
> 
> Best,
> 
> M
> 
>  
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:25 PM
> To: Carlos A. Afonso
> Cc: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: [discuss] More on Internet technical community thoughts ...
>  
> Dear Carlos, and all,
>  
> Perhaps the thoughts of the Internet Technical Community are not as well known on this list as I had imagined.  To correct any lack of understanding that may exist, I’d like to publish some of the thoughts of this stakeholder group.  The statement below has been endorsed by many of the organizations in the Interent technical ecosystem, as well as by leading individuals in that community.
>  
> I’d like to stress that members of the technical community are individuals who live and work in their physical and industrial communities and in their societies, and who generally share the values of many civil society organizations.  IMO we also tend to believe that the cooperative leadership exercised by the private sector, some governments, and the academic and research communities has been the primary driver for the creation, growth and deployment of the Internet, and we oppose unreasonable limitations on the activities of these sectors in their sphere of knowledge, competence, and ability to contribute to that growth.
>  
> I hope that this set of observations and recommendations will help to explain the sense of the Internet technical community.
>  
> George
>  
> Context
> The Internet technical community consists of individuals and organizations from around the world that understand the global Internet as a complex interaction of technology, standards, implementation, operation and application. They bring this expertise when working with governments, national and international organizations, educational institutions, civil society organizations, and private sector entities to maintain a technically viable Internet that can also respond to societal needs. While participants have a wide range of missions and roles to play, the Internet technical community shares a common culture that is grounded in a clear understanding of the unique technical characteristics of the Internet. These characteristics are essential to the Internet’s past, present, and future success as a platform for advancing the economic and social well- being of all of its users.
> 
> In a remarkably short period of time, the Internet has evolved from a research effort to test the then-new theories of computer networking to a powerful, pervasive, and now indispensable tool for global communication, business innovation, government, social networking and the activities of daily life. Even those who were responsible for the technical choices that provided the foundation for that evolution have different perspectives on how much of today’s Internet and its impact were anticipated and intentional, and how much was fortunate and unplanned. Regardless of how this history is interpreted, many of the early technology and architecture choices that created the Internet that we know today were made as integral, original elements of the network itself. They remain essential to the Internet as a complex, multi-dimensional system. In particular, the network operates with only the minimal central authority required for essential coordination, allowing for the autonomy and growth of constituent networks.
> 
> To avoid compromising the Internet’s technical core functions and processes, the policy debates of Internet governance would benefit from being informed by the experience and insight of those who have been directly responsible for developing and operating it. The principles that have promoted and sustained the development of the Internet since its inception — the open and inclusive process for developing Internet protocols and standards, the impartial stewardship of Internet naming and addressing resources, and the decentralized cooperation and collaboration of network operators around the globe — are the Internet technical community’s critical contribution to these debates.
> 
> The Internet technical community is an indispensable stakeholder and contributor to the global Internet governance dialogue. The organizations and individuals in this community have had over four decades of cumulative experience in creating, improving, deploying, and managing the Internet in almost all countries of the world, under a wide variety of legal, administrative, and regulatory regimes. We are concerned that the technical viability of the global Internet is at risk unless the current Internet governance discussions lead to a consensus that preserves the essential principles that have contributed to making the Internet we have today.
> 
> The impact of different governance regimes on the Internet as a robust and remarkably generative connectivity infrastructure may not be evident to those who are not familiar with its history, do not have an expert understanding of its technology, or have not had direct experience with its deployment and operation. As a contribution to the global Internet governance dialogue, the following recommendations are made by individuals and organizations to whom, by virtue of their involvement in the technical development and deployment of the Internet those potential impacts are evident.
> 
> Recommendations
> 
> The openness and transparency of Internet policy and technical development processes are intrinsic to the success of the Internet itself, which depends on a global and interoperable fabric of information and communications technology and the people who operate and use it. We recognize that the multi-stakeholder model of decision-making, articulated around the following principles and practices, has proven to be the most effective model of governance for the Internet’s technical development, and has the potential to enhance and reinforce future Internet evolution:
> 
> A. Open and inclusive participation: Participation in Internet technical development and operation, including technical standards development and allocation of the Internet number resources, is open to all interested and informed parties. This has been key for the Internet’s success. Participation of all interested and informed stakeholders in governance processes is necessary to ensure that outcomes are accepted as legitimate and that solutions are effective.
> 
> B. Consensus-based: The development of Internet technical standards and processes is done on the basis of open consensus. This allows for all views to be considered, and agreement to be found across a range of interests. Internet governance decisions should also be grounded on open, transparent, and collaborative work. Policy-making processes should be informed by individual and collective expertise and practical experience, and decisions should be arrived at by open consensus rather than as a result of a voting process.
> 
> C. Permission-less innovation: The remarkable growth of the Internet, the fostering of innovation and its uses follows directly from the open model of Internet connectivity and standards development. No central authority should be established, as part of any future Internet governance arrangement that would constrain or regulate the ability of individuals or organizations to create and use new standards, applications, or services.
> 
> D. Collective stewardship and empowerment: Strong notions of equity and fairness among participants mark the technical development of the Internet. The success of Internet development and operation is secured by the recognition of respective roles and responsibilities by Internet community members who cooperate, respectful of each organization’s autonomy, integrity, and processes. To ensure the continued security, stability, and resilience of the Internet, governance structures and principles must be developed in an environment of strong cooperation among all stakeholders, each contributing a perspective informed by their respective roles and responsibilities.
> 
> E. Transparency: Internet technical standards bodies and operating entities function in a transparent way. They provide advance public notice of proposed activities, which describes the scope of work to be undertaken and the conditions for participation. The principle of transparency assures that all interested stakeholders can directly observe the work being done and have access to its results.
> 
> F. Pragmatic and evidence-based approach: In the technical world, solutions are chosen and defined based on technical merit, judged according to the collective expertise of all participants. Processes are driven by the ability to devise practical solutions to concrete problems, based upon informed discussion. We observe that lack of clarity in emerging issues in Internet governance results in incomplete agreement about how to address the problem. In this spirit, Internet governance discussions and debates must be informed by and depend upon objective and empirical information.
> 
> G. Voluntary adoption: Internet standards and processes are voluntarily adopted by network operators, equipment manufacturers, and other infrastructure participants, and their success is determined in the marketplace. In the realm of Internet technical policy development, the principle of voluntarism means that success is determined by users and the public at large rather than by any central authority.
> 
> As the Internet evolves in the future, its continued security, stability, accessibility and usefulness will grow to be even more important to support most critical aspects of human activity. The above recommendations are our contribution to this effort, based upon the Internet technical community’s long term and intensive involvement in the technical development, deployment and operation of the Internet.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140417/d17a9f10/attachment-0001.html>