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

[Seth Johnson]

I think the specific themes of Norbert's list are absolutely critical.
 Robustness is how people should be thinking.  And I think going to a
special list just for that will be a tremendous help.  Let it all feed
back and together, but this is the "ad hoc discussion topic" I want to
watch.


Seth

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am indifferent about this development. However, I really wonder how this
> new list make a difference especially as it's an individual initiative.
> While I don't support a stakeholder exhibiting dominance on a supposed
> multistakeholder platform, I still think stakeholder participation and
> support is vital to the overall sustainability of a "truly"
> multistakerholder platform.
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 9 Feb 2014 20:41, "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