[discuss] Celebrating CS gains through MSism was RE: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

Mon Mar 24 15:43:56 UTC 2014

Hello Michael,

On a serious note, at times I get confused on your views. Initially
indicate the the USG (which is basically any typical govt) is the issue
that should be removed from the process and thank goodness the USG heard
and responded positively. Now you are saying the  multistakeholder approach
is also not it, then what is the solution?
You are giving example of organisation you belong (which for instance I
don't know and can't find foot print of it's activities online) have you
tried to make your contribution known and was kicked back?
I think comments like this is what makes the whole multistakeholder
approach more complicated. I know you probably have more experience than I
do, however I think it may be good to not further complicate things for
those who are trying to understand/educate themselves through this medium.
It will be more constructive to read from you, what you think is the
problem and how to fix it. Than just sticking with the problem. This is why
I appreciate Milton's approach (which does not necessarily mean it's the
solution, but he has put something on the table) and I can say I learnt
from it.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 Mar 2014 23:26, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think Alejandro's note below illustrates one of the fundamental
> limitations of the multistakeholder approach.
>
>
>
> Alejandro states: *this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to
> amaze me: civil society has gained the most among all sectors from the
> multistakeholder component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the
> environment. We from civil society have broken silos and gained a global
> voice and unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence
> inside our countries.*
>
>
>
> I don't wish to comment on the truth or falsity of this statement.
> However, I would note that in the midst of the recitation of those involved
> in these processes and the "gains" made by Civil Society interests (and
> presumably others) I must ask what has happened to the "public interest"
> i.e. the interests of all over and above the individual sectional
> interests;  or the interests of other non-represented groups in these
> processes.
>
>
>
> For example, the Community Informatics community of which I am a part,
> concerned as it with the interests of grassroots communities particularly
> the marginalized, has only a partially overlapping set of
> concerns/"interests" and particularly priorities with "civil society" (as
> for example is indicated by the issues presented by CS in Tunis where the
> CS priority was focused on Human Rights while the CI community was rather
> more concerned with access and social justice issues). Given the refusal of
> "Civil Society" to include CI and its concerns within its framework and the
> refusal of those acting as stakeholder gatekeepers for current MS processes
> to allow for an independent status for the CI community Alejandro's
> self-congratulatory statement above rings rather hollow.
>
>
>
> But over and above this is the matter of who and how the public interest
> is represented--for example in ensuring that processes are fair, transparent
> and accountable and not subverted or suborned to individual or private
> interests; for ensuring a necessary range of participation including among
> those who might, for a variety of reasons, not be actively pursuing such
> participation; for including normative diversity (including those
> supportive of social justice) as well as identity based diversity; and for
> representing the Internet as a global public commons among others.
>
>
>
> I remain to be informed as to how these matters will be resolved through
> the creation of a "multistakeholder consensus" or through the concatenation
> of sectional interests which the current description of
> "multistakeholderism" is presenting as the means by through which outcome
> decisions are obtained.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Alejandro Pisanty
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 23, 2014 12:22 AM
>
>
>
>
> *To:* parminder
> *Cc:* discuss at 1net.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
>
>
>
> Parminder,
>
>
>
> this statement puts in a nutshell what never ceases to amaze me: civil
> society has gained the most among all sectors from the multistakeholder
> component of governance, be it Internet, finance, or the environment. We
> from civil society have broken silos and gained a global voice and
> unparallelled global influence, often paired with influence inside our
> countries.
>
>
>
> Yet the position you present reverts power to governments only - e.g.
> through the demand of public funding and the exclusion of private funding;
> the same governments most civil society is at odds with (admittedly in very
> different ways and levels.)
>
>
>
> I continue to find it incredibly paradoxal to have civil society leading
> the effort to braid the rope with which governments would gladly hang us.
>
>
>
> Another perplexing element of this discourse is calling the effective,
> open, evolvable, broadly participatory and open multistakeholder processes
> undemocratic and the multilateral and governmental "democratic", when maybe
> two thirds of the world population do not consider their condition
> democratic.
>
>
>
> The remedy to the thick suspicionism of yours and colleagues - after
> stating lack of knowledge of the organizations and matters beign spoken of
> - is not doing away with the multistakeholder component in favor of the
> governmental or multilateral, but optimizing the combined contributions
> they can make. ICANN-as-a-laboratory provides a lot of learning in this
> respect, wasted by not being studied enough. And the whole framework is
> vital for the NTIA functional substitution problem to hand, which these
> discussions have long drifted away from.
>
>
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>
> This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says
>
> "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding   is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.
>
>  In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   towards or against the development of open standards, or taking
>
>    varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols   on the other traffic on the Internet."
>
>
> It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly function, but
> governance definitionally is. So, if commercial funding can distort
> Internet research, it is but obviously that it has to be an absolute no no
> for governance functions (standards making for something as socially
> important today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral public
> oversight constitutes a governance function).
>
> parminder
>
> On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
>
>
> On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
>
> do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
>
> Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
>
> expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
>
> transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
>
> John, I think a rather significant problem.
>
> Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
>
>
>
> And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
>
> all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
>
> I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
>
> how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
>
> context.
>
>
>
> But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
>
> at the facts in the public record and then come back.
>
> I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
>
> found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
>
> same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
>
> pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
>
> if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
>
>
>
> So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
>
> And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
>
> anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
>
> The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
>
> this paragraph.
>
>
>
> S.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
>
>
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
>
> i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
>
> 6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
>
> fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
>
> Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
>
> EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
>
> =eajt
>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140324/197b2896/attachment-0001.html>