Thank you for this very interesting taxonomy. Any effective examples for #5?

Cheers

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176 (New Number)
Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El dic 26, 2014, a las 8:32 PM, JFC Morfin <[log in to unmask]> escribió:
> 
> Dear Milton,
> 
> There are plenty of possible conflicts of interest in life. This is democracy: there is an exact maximum risk of 49,999% of the number of people having expressed a vote, what may usually amount to the majority since in most of the cases there are non-voters. Is it possible to reduce this risk? Yes, in trying to best accomodate every stakeholder. I.e; not in asking people yes/no about a predetermined response, but in looking first for the best question most of them could agree.
> 
> There are at least five options adopted in the internet convenance processes:
> 
> 1. democratic hierarchy: people vote for their Governements for hem to protect their Public Interest. This is the ITU process which led to the Dubai vote. The count is strict. The result is legal and legitimate, except if the majority opposes the dominant or abstain.
> 
> 2. one decides/accept who is supposed to be ***accountable*** to all the others and then to decide. This the ICANN approach. No legitimacy except by auctions.
> 
> 3. one decides what looks to be the ***rough consensus*** of participating others. This is the IETF approach. Legitimacy by competence without innovation.
> 
> 4. most of the stakeholders think there is a ***large consensus*** among most of them. This is the RFC 6852/NTIA supported multistakeholder doctrine. Legitimacy by who can buy a stakeholder themselves a consortium seat.
> 
> 5. there is multitude ***omni-stake-holder*** polycractic process where legitimacy is by mutually acknowledged competent innovation (the "permissionless innovation" paradigm)
> 
> The five processes have cons and pros. The most difficult point is that the winner must be able to decide by itself that it is the winner.
> 
> jfc
> 
> 
> At 19:01 25/12/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Dan,
>> Your approach to the problem implies that there are no conflicts of interest.
>> So what happens when my individual right to freedom of expression conflicts with some very powerful interest groups who DON'T agree that our world is better when I am able to innovate. In those cases I would say, rights are more important, there is no public interest calculus.
>> 
>> There are, e.g., taxi drivers who find Uber's right to innovate and their customers' right to choose something that should be suppressed in the name of the public interest. What do you say?
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> > Of Dan Krimm
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 11:44 PM
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Important blog post about the ICANN
>> > Accountability CCWG
>> >
>> > Okay, I guess I still want to emphasize the aspect of individual rights as a
>> > collective interest.
>> >
>> > *My/our* world is made better when *your* kids are better educated.
>> >
>> > *I/we* benefit when *you* are able to innovate more effectively.
>> >
>> > *My/our* ability to understand my/our world is enhanced by *your*
>> > freedom to speak.
>> >
>> > The (non-linear, exponential, multiplier) network effects of individual
>> > freedoms are what constitute the most important (IMHO) collective benefit
>> > of individual rights.
>> >
>> > And, our individual lives are improved when there is a rising tide that lifts all
>> > ships.  Regardless of the context where term may have originated, this is true
>> > and important.
>> >
>> > So, when we encounter appropriation of the P.I. term by narrow interests, I
>> > think we should be prepared to respond to re-cast it systematically, and not
>> > only "de-appropriate" the term or respond to it ad hoc.  I think it's worth
>> > thinking about this systematically, so that when we encounter the need there
>> > is a consistent frame to use that ties all the individual instances together in a
>> > consistent manner.
>> >
>> > We should always be thinking about how individual rights raise the tide
>> > overall and multiply exponentially to benefit society collectively.
>> > Especially if the term is being used to argue for narrow benefits in some
>> > specific case.
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
>> > not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At 4:00 AM +0000 12/24/14, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> > >Dan:
>> > >Of course there are collective goods, and a need to organize
>> > >politically to achieve them.
>> > >And I agree that freedoms themselves have many positive externalities;
>> > >and that a legal system that protects rights could itself be considered
>> > >a collective good; and that protecting rights (as I said in my last
>> > >message) is in the interest of the general public.
>> > >
>> > >I think the only significant disagreement is here:
>> > >
>> > >> So it seems there may be two broad strategies to choose from here:
>> > >> (1) re- appropriating the term P.I., or (2) attempting to remove the term
>> > P.I.
>> > >> outright from systematic discourse among policy makers at ICANN.  And
>> > >> it seems you are arguing for the latter.
>> > >
>> > >Neither. I don't think the term P.I. can be "appropriated." That's what
>> > >I have been trying to say. I guess the opposing vision here is that
>> > >through persistent organizing and agitating we can condition (in the
>> > >Pavlovian
>> > >sense) the ICANN polity to think of _our_ specific values and policy
>> > >agenda every time they hear the term P.I. But it's hard to see how or
>> > >why that would ever work. Dozens of other political actors are busy
>> > >appropriating the term, including GACers (who think they represent the
>> > >public interest simply by virtue of the fact that they are
>> > >governments), intellectual property interests and business interests.
>> > >And I am enough of a rational actor theorist to think that when GAC or
>> > >the government of China or Steve DelBianco and other business interests
>> > >actively push the term they know what they are doing, that kind of
>> > >framing must contribute to their own policy agenda in an important way.
>> > >So in the end, you just end up having an argument about what the public
>> > >interest really is and whose conception is right.
>> > >
>> > >Or at worst, you create a bias in the discourse against individual
>> > >freedom and principled recognition of rights, because in a mature
>> > >institutionalized system most committed and well-resourced actors are
>> > >trying to control things collectively rather than un-control things or
>> > >free them up.
>> > >
>> > >More below...
>> > >
>> > >> I'm not sure if these need to be perfectly mutually exclusive, and I
>> > >> can see there may be certain situations where the latter strategy
>> > >> might be the most effective one for our immediate (collective NCSG)
>> > >> purposes.  But I expect there will probably be other specific
>> > >> circumstances where the former strategy might hold the most promise.
>> > >>
>> > >> Maybe we can agree to try to be aware of the two options, try to
>> > >> determine which option is the best for a specific circumstance, and
>> > >> then use that strategy where it seems to be the best choice to accomplish
>> > our goals.
>> > >>
>> > >> Does that make sense to you?
>> > >
>> > >Yes, it does. I am not trying to banish the term PI from the lexicon
>> > >entirely. It can be useful when narrowly focused economic (or
>> > >political) interest groups grab control of a policy process and milk it
>> > >for private gain. The obvious line of attack in those situations is to
>> > >say, yes, we see how this benefits X interest group (French vintners,
>> > >or registrars, or incumbent registries or something) but doesn't it do
>> > >so at the expense of the public? But I just don't think the overarching
>> > >principle of our policy agenda is the public interest per se, a term
>> > >taken from late 19th century utility regulation. I would rather think
>> > >of it as advancing and protecting individual rights, especially rights
>> > >to free expression and to an open and innovative internet.
>> > >
>> > >--MM