| WisdomTaskForce.org | N. Bollow |
| Internet-Draft | 2013 |
| Intended status: Informational | |
| Expires: December 25, 2016 |
Plan to Establish a Wisdom Task Force
draft-bollow-wisdomtaskforce-00
This memo calls for the creation of a new governance forum named "Wisdom Task Force" (WisdomTF). The main purpose of the WisdomTF is to facilitate consensus-seeking strategy-oriented discussions regarding governance actions that may be decided by national parliaments.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
In the context of World Summit on the Information Society, the various participating Civil Society organizations jointly formulated a vision for shaping information societies for human needs [WSIS-CS]. That was in 2003. Since then, not much has happened to implement this vision. That needs to change now, because the situation is truly outrageous, see [Outrage]. Human society, the way in which people interact with each other, is more and more shaped by technology. However the decisions that shape this technology, and thereby our societies, are made mostly by a relatively narrow group of technologists and business interests without any significant consideration of global fairness or of the public interest. This violates the human right to democratic self-government of the peoples.
The present proposal provides a practical mechanism to address these problems.
Furthermore, it provides a way to realize the potential of information society to collaboratively develop strategies to address the pressing global challenges of humanity such as to effectively limit greenhouse gas emissions and to empower people everywhere to overcome poverty. With regard to these challenges, the main problem is not that they are hard to solve. In fact there are good methods for strategy development available, see e.g. [Dettmer]. Rather, the problem is that our socioeconomic systems create strong incentives for corporations and governments to prioritize the pursuit of rather short-term economic goals. This is the same mechanism which also causes concerns of international fairness and human rights to be largely ignored in technology development.
The solution proposed here is based on providing national parliaments with the necessary information for making good and strategically sound decisions.
Parliaments already have the democratic legitimacy and the power to create legislation that imposes principles of conduct and creates incentives and disincentives.
In addition, parliaments are well-designed for handling the hard task of seeking an appropriate balance between the various legitimate interests.
Drawing inspiration from how the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) works, the present memo proposes a Wisdom Task Force with the purpose to develop, through an international multistakeholder rough consensus process, informative documents that empower national parliaments to make good, well-informed decisions on information society issues, and other global issues that can effectively be addressed by means of information society methods and principles.
The Wisdom Task Force is in many ways analogous, though complementary, to how inter-governmental cooperation can also benefit from enhancement through international multistakeholder dialogue, see [ECTF].
Here are some significant properties of the Wisdom Task Force proposal:
This memo requests and recommends actions, but it does not define requirements. The use of the keywords of [RFC2119] describing requirement levels is therefore deliberately avoided.
The Preparatory Working-Group described in Section 2 should not consider itself bound by any of the text in this memo, but rather it should feel free to reconsider and revise all of these recommendations.
A Preparatory Working-Group of diverse stakeholders who all agree with the vision for shaping information societies for human needs [WSIS-CS] shall be convened to review and revise the contents of this memo.
The work of this Preparatory Working-Group could begin with an in-person kick-off meeting which might be a one-day pre-event for the 2013 Internet Governance Forum.
WisdomTF's scope of work shall be to empower national parliaments to make good, well-informed decisions on information society issues, and other global issues that can effectively be addressed by means of information society methods and principles.
This section provides a draft set of rules that should be carefully considered and revised by the WisdomTF Preparatory Working-Group, with the goal of creating a good initial Working Directives document for WisdomTF. The Preparatory Working-Group should at all times conduct its activities in accordance with what the current draft Working Directives say about how a WisdomTF Working-Group conducts its work. In this way, the Preparatory Working-Group will be conducting an initial test of how the draft directives work in practice, and any unreasonably burdensome rules can be recognized and fixed quickly.
The fundamental values of the WisdomTF are the vision for shaping information societies for human needs [WSIS-CS] and that the human rights, as defined in the various international human rights treaties, shall be upheld and implemented in every way possible.
Evidence-based arguments on how these objectives can be best achieved shall be given precedence over more speculative arguments.
WisdomTF Working-Groups shall seek to provide, by means of the Request For Balance documents that they publish, the best possible information input to the decision-making processes of national parliaments. The Working-Groups shall seek to collect, by means of a balanced multistakeholder process, information about needs, concerns, cause-effect relationships, and available evidence, and to process all this to the extent possible into recommendations. The Working-Groups shall particularly pay attention to any relevant proceedings at existing fora for global policy dialogue, such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for Internet governance topics. At the very least, every Working-Group should be able to reach rough consensus on recommendations of the form "Public policy regarding topic X should take into consideration the following needs and concerns... ." Ideally (but with greater difficulty of reaching rough consensus) specific proposals for laws and others kinds of public policy decisions should be developed in a form that explicitly suggests a choice of options for possible choices of the balance between conflicting legitimate interests, together with information on what is known about the advantages and disadvantages (from the public interest perspective) of the different options.
WisdomTF Working-Groups are generally free to define their own working procedures subject to the constraints that everyone without restriction must be welcome to participate as long as they participate constructively, and that decisions are made by the principle of rough consensus.
Unless foreseen differently in the Terms of Reference of a Working Group, or the Working-Group decides otherwise, the WisdomTF Secretariat (see Section 4.8) shall use its discretion in setting up electronic communication infrastructure (such as an email mailing list) for the Working-Group, and in organizing in-person meetings, and in reminding participants, when this may be necessary, of the principles of professionally respectful conduct, or of international human rights law, or of the Terms of Reference of the particular Working-Group.
If and only if such reminders prove ineffective, the Secretariat shall request the Committee (see Section 4.8.2) to decide an appropriate sanction which may take the form of barring specific persons from participation in WisdomTF for a specific amount of time. The Committee can decide to impose such sanctions only by consensus or rough consensus but not by majority voting.
All substantive discussion and decision-making of the Working-Groups shall be conducted exclusively via the Internet, in order to ensure fairness of participation also of people who do not have funding for international travel.
All WisdomTF Working-Groups shall seek to interact with the broader professional community for the respective governance topics by active participation in the relevant global policy fora, such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for Internet governance topics.
All WG documents and draft documents shall be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license with a note that a link to http://enhanced-cooperation.org/ suffices as attribution.
All electronic communication infrastructure shall fulfill all of the following requirements:
The Secretariat shall process requests for publication of draft documents as Request For Balance documents as follows:
The Working-Group which has made the decision to publish a Request For Balance document may instruct the Secretariat to issue a Consensus Call for Overall Rough Consensus Endorsement by WisdomTF.
In this case the Secretariat shall communicate to all WisdomTF participants a request to review that Request For Balance document and communicate any objections within 90 days.
If any objections are received, the Working-Group shall review the objections and decide whether it wants to revise the Request For Balance document.
If no objections are received, or if the Working-Group otherwise decides not to revise the Request For Balance document, it may ask for a determination whether there is Overall Rough Consensus of WisdomTF. Overall Rough Consensus means that there must be rough consensus among each of the major stakeholder categories: Governments, civil society and industry. The determination of Overall Rough Consensus is made by the Committee of Sustaining Members, see Section 4.8.2 below.
If it is determined that there is overall Overall Rough Consensus, the Secretariat shall add information to this effect to the concerned Request For Balance document. Furthermore, the Secretariat shall in this case issue a press release.
This section outlines the process for the formation of new WisdomTF Working-Groups. The objective of these rules is to make it as easy as reasonably possible to create such Working-Groups as soon as there is sufficient interest, while avoiding the creation of Working-Groups that would violate WisdomTF's fundamental values (see Section 4.1) or that would not attract a sufficient number and variety of participants that output documents of high quality can be achieved.
The WisdomTF Secretariat (see Section 4.8) shall make electronic communication infrastructure (such as an email mailing list) available for the purpose of informal discussion of ideas for new WisdomTF Working-Groups.
The Secretariat shall use its discretion in reminding participants, when this may be necessary, of the values of WisdomTF including the principles of professionally respectful conduct and international human rights law.
If such reminders prove insufficient for achieving a reasonably pleasant working atmosphere, the Secretariat shall request the Committee (see Section 4.8.2) to decide an appropriate sanction which may take the form of barring specific persons from participation in WisdomTF for a specific amount of time. The Committee can decide to impose such sanctions only by consensus or rough consensus but not by majority voting.
After at least one month has elapsed since an idea has been initially proposed for information discussion, a WisdomTF Working-Group can be formed by three or more Sustaining Members endorsing Terms of Reference for the new Working-Group. The Terms of Reference shall specify objectives and guiding principles for the Working-Group.
The Secretariat shall verify that the Terms of Reference for the new Working-Group do not violate WisdomTF's fundamental values (see Section 4.1), and that the Terms of Reference uphold these values at least as well as any other Working-Group addressing a very similar topic area for which the required Endorsement has been received earlier or up to two days later. For any Terms of Reference document which fails this test, the corresponding Working-Group shall not be created. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that if different groups of Sustaining Members propose different frameworks to address the same problem, so that one of them is clearly better from a human rights perspective, then precedence is appropriately given to the better framework.
When it has been decided that establishment of the Working-Group is appropriate, the Secretariat shall set up appropriate communications infrastructure and add the new Working-Group to the list of WisdomTF Working-Groups, with Active status. Furthermore, the Secretariat shall inform about the new Working-Group all registered participants including the sustaining members, as well as the general public, and all known civil society organizations with relevant expertise.
This section outlines the procedures for closing down a Working-Group. These procedures are intended to be used not only when the tasks of a Working-Group have been completed, but also if it becomes clear that progress is only possible by creating a new Working-Group on essentially the same topic but with Terms of Reference that provide more specific guidance which makes it easier to reach rough consensus.
A Working-Group has the power of making the decision to dissolve itself.
Sustaining Members which have endorsed a Working-Group can at any time withdraw their endorsement. If this causes the number of Sustaining Members which endorse a particular Working-Group to drop below three, the status of the Working-Group changes to Inactive; as long as a Working-Group has Inactive status, it cannot decide to publish Request For Balance documents. The status changes to Active again if the number of endorsing Sustaining Members again increases to three or more.
A Working-Group which has Inactive status for a continuous period of six months or more is dissolved.
As outlined in Section 4.8.5, the Secretariat will if necessary take corrective action if a Working-Groups fails to function. In such a situation, a Working-Group may be dissolved if no-one is willing to serve as chairperson.
A Secretariat for the WisdomTF shall be established with seat in Zurich, Switzerland. A host country agreement shall be established with the country of Switzerland which ensures that if the Secretariat should not act fairly and diligently according to its various responsibilities, injunctions to correct the behavior of the Secretariat can be obtained from Swiss courts of law. Any natural or legal person, internationally, without restriction, shall have standing to sue for an injunction for correction of the behavior of the Secretariat.
The WisdomTF Secretariat shall be funded, and decisions of budget and staffing of the WisdomTF Secretariat shall be made by a Committee of Sustaining Members, as described in Section 4.8.2 below. In addition, Sustaining Members have a special role in regard to Working-Group formation (see Section 4.6.2) and dissolution (see Section 4.7.2).
This section defines categories of Sustaining Membership and corresponding eligibility criteria. All Sustaining Members have equal rights in regard to the endorsement of Working-Groups (see Section 4.6.2). The categories differ only in regard to the responsibilities for funding the WisdomTF Secretariat, and in regard to representation on the Committee of Sustaining Members.
Any country which is recognized by the UN as a country may become a Country Member of the WisdomTF.
Any membership organization of which at least three members are recognized by the UN as countries may become an International Organization Member of the WisdomTF. Alternatively, any organ or other subentity of such an international organization may become an International Organization Member of the WisdomTF.
Any company or industry organization which is willing and able to fulfill the financial obligations outlined in Section 4.8.3) below may become a Sustaining Industry Member.
Individuals and civil society organizations will upon request be recognized as Sustaining Civil Society Members if they fulfill both of the following conditions:
The Secretariat checks whether these conditions are satisfied.
Decisions of budget and staffing of the WisdomTF Secretariat shall be made by a Committee of Sustaining Members, as follows: From each of the four categories of Sustaining Members, up to five representatives may be delegated to the Committee, so that in total the committee consists of up to twenty persons.
When in any category of Sustaining Members there are five or less Sustaining Members in the category, they shall each be invited to delegate a person to the Committee.
When in any category of Sustaining Members there are more than five Sustaining Members, they shall attempt to agree among themselves on a way of selecting five representatives (for example by adopting a system of rotation). If they cannot agree and more than five want to be on the Committee, the Secretariat shall randomly choose, for a two-year term, five from among those who want to be on the Committee.
The Committee shall attempt to make decisions by rough consensus. If this fails, decisions regarding the Secretariat may be taken at a meeting at which decision making by majority vote is allowed, which may be convened no earlier than 16 hours after the rough consensus process has failed.
The Committee shall review any proposed changes to the WisdomTF Working Directives before publication as a Request For Balance document. It shall communicate any concerns to the Working-Group which is proposing changes to the Working Directives.
The Committee is also responsible for the determination of Overall Rough Consensus, see Section 4.5. The decision of determination of Overall Rough Consensus needs to be reached by rough consensus of the Committee; if the Committee fails to reach rough consensus, the Request For Balance document in question shall not be considered to have attained Overall Rough Consensus. This applies also to the Consensus Call in the context of changes to the WisdomTF Working Directives (see Section 4.8.4 the difference being only that that Consensus Call involves only the Sustaining Members.
Organizations which are interested in being Sustaining Industry Members shall make, for a specific number of years, a commitment that they are willing to contribute to funding the costs of the secretariat up to a specific amount.
Independently of whether this commitment is actually called upon (see below) a maximal set of Sustaining Industry Members is chosen so that the yearly commitment limit of each Sustaining Industry Members is greater or equal than the budget of WisdomTF divided by the number of Sustaining Industry Members.
The Country Members as a group have the right to organize a way of funding WisdomTF which is independent of the Sustaining Industry Members. In that case the commitments of the Sustaining Industry Members are not called upon.
Unless the Country Members make use of this right, the Secretariat and the Committee shall seek to ensure adequate funding by means of one or more of the following sources of funds: Voluntary contributions, grants from foundations and/or other grant-giving institutions, calling upon the Sustaining Industry Members to each contribute an equal amount.
If there are no Sustaining Industry Members and the operations of the Secretariat have also not been adequately funded otherwise, the Secretariat shall have the authority to suspend some of its operations, according to its sole discretion.
If the Committee intends to increase the budget of the Secretariat, the Committee shall, before making the decision to do so, secure commitments that sufficient funding will be made available. Furthermore, the Committee shall regularly assess the risk of available funding potentially dropping below the level of the current budget, and appropriate contingency plans shall be made.
If a WisdomTF Working-Group proposes a new version of the Directives, the Secretariat shall organize a Consensus Call among all Sustaining Members. If and only if there is rough consensus among each category of Sustaining Members for adoption of the revised Directives (as determined by the Committee, see Section 4.8.2), the Secretariat shall put them in force by publishing a Request For Balance document that gives the details about how the new version was adopted, and requests the new version of the Directives to be followed from now on.
Country Members or International Organization Members may propose to make WisdomTF part of the UN or another existing or new treaty-based international organization. Such a proposal needs to be approved in the same way by rough consensus of all sustaining members of WisdomTF, in addition to whatever other steps may be required to create a new umbrella organization for WisdomTF.
The Secretariat shall seek to ensure an official presence at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), for example by means of a booth.
The Secretariat shall provide guidance to WisdomTF Working-Groups on how to self-organize on the basis of the principle of rough consensus decision-making.
If it is brought to the attention of the Secretariat that a WisdomTF Working-Group has, for an continuous period of three or more months, failed to self-organize or otherwise failed to make any substantive progress towards its objectives, the Secretariat shall take the following steps: First the Secretariat shall verify that this is indeed the case. If yes, the Secretariat shall solicit nominations and self-nominations from among the Working-Group members of potential chairpersons who could organize the work of the Working-Group. If at least one person is nominated, the Secretariat shall appoint a chairperson. If no-one is nominated, the Secretariat shall dissolve the Working-Group.
Working-Groups may also by means of a rough consensus decision request and empower the Secretariat to execute this process of chairperson appointment. The Secretariat shall honor such requests.
This section provides draft Terms of Reference statements for some possible WisdomTF Working-Groups (WGs).
The WisdomTF Preparatory Working-Group should consider and revise these texts in order to ensure that when WisdomTF is created, it will be easy to quickly also establish some worthwhile Working-Groups.
The Preparatory Working-Group will not itself create these Working-Groups; rather it should publish, in addition to a Request For Balance document with recommended Working Directives, also a Request For Balance document recommending Terms of Reference for some Working-Groups. It should then be easy to create such Working-Groups by means of the procedure for WG Creation in the Working Directives (see Section 4.6).
This WG shall compare and discuss the various existing statements of Internet rights and principles (see for example the list of links on the website of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus [Links]), and publish, as a Request For Balance document, a consolidated version which provides reasonably detailed guidance on interpretation of human rights in the Internet context and on guiding principles for Internet governance to further human rights.
Rationale: The current situation with so many independently developed statements of Internet rights and principles is not very helpful in practice.
This WG shall follow up on the Workshop on Standards for Sustainable Digital Culture taking place at the 2012 IGF in Baku, see [Culture]. The WG shall publish, in the form of one or more Request For Balance documents, appropriate recommendations regarding government activities aimed at the furtherance of culture.
Rationale: As outlined in the Background Paper for that workshop, see [Bollow], this is important in regard to the human rights of artists and the general public.
This WG shall continually observe the progress of the work of WisdomTF, in particular in view of the need for progress in regard to practical realization of human rights, and discuss any suggestions for changes to the Working Directives. Whenever the WG has rough consensus that a change to the Working Directives may be desirable, the WG shall publish a Request For Balance document with revised Working Directives and an appendix that explains the rationale for the changes. This document shall not be phrased as definitely containing the new Working Directives, but rather as a request to the body of Sustaining Members of WisdomTF to adopt the proposed new Working Directives. (Adoption of such a revised Working Directives document is done by rough consensus among the Sustaining Members of WisdomTF.)
Rationale: Every organization needs to observe its own performance, and to take corrective action when necessary.
Similarly to security considerations for technical systems (see RFC 3552 [RFC3552]), governance fora and processes need to be designed for robustness against attempts of "inappropriate usage" and "denial of service". In addition, the integrity of WisdomTF work with regard to human rights needs to be safeguarded.
Clearly WisdomTF needs rules governing the interaction between participants. In the absence of appropriate rules, participation in WisdomTF cannot be expected to be effective, time-efficient and a pleasant experience.
These rules need to be designed so that bona fide well-intentioned newcomers with reasonably good communication skills will be able to quickly learn how to participate effectively, while on the other hand there need to be effective disincentives that discourage and penalize disruptive and non-constructive behavior.
It is particularly important to avoid vulnerability of WisdomTF and its working-groups to the political equivalent of what is called "denial of service" attacks in the technical realm: It must not be possible for beneficiaries of the status quo (who may fear a potential loss of power) to disrupt discussions that could lead to new forms of enhanced cooperation.
The rules of WisdomTF need to ensure that all recommendations published by its working-groups are designed to uphold the fundamental principles which are internationally recognized as human rights, and to improve as much as possible the practical ability of people everywhere to enjoy their human rights.
This memo includes no request to IANA.
This memo has been inspired significantly by postings on the mailing list of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus [IGC] from various participants, including Bertrand de La Chapelle, Avri Doria, William Drake, Anriette Esterhuysen, Andrea Glorioso, Michael Gurstein, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Jeremy Malcolm, Lee W McKnight, Parminder Jeet Singh, and Roland Perry. This acknowledgment of inspiration is not intended to imply that any of the named persons endorse the contents of this memo.
Endorsements will be solicited at a later stage.
Comments and other feedback of any kind regarding this Internet-Draft are requested in the form of postings to the mailing list of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus [IGC] (preferred) or in the form of personal communications to the author.
| [Bollow] | Bollow, N., "Standards for Sustainable Digital Culture (Background Paper)", 2012. |
| [Culture] | Bollow, N., "IGF Workshop: Standards for Sustainable Digital Culture", 2012. |
| [Dettmer] | Dettmer, H., "The Logical Thinking Process", ISBN 978-0-87389-723-5, 2008. |
| [ECTF] | Bollow, N., "Request For Action to Establish an Enhanced Cooperation Task Force", Work in progress , 2013. |
| [IGC] | Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, "Mailing list" |
| [Links] | Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, "Links" |
| [Outrage] | Bollow, N., "Digital-Age.Info Declaration of Outrage", 2013. |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC3552] | Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003. |
| [WSIS-CS] | Civil Society, "Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society", 2003. |