CHAT TRANSCRIPT FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

Isen:06:35 hello world
isen:06:35 hello world
isen:06:36 good morning vietnaaaaam
Christopher Mitchell:08:44 Can we watch "what does the fox say" next?
Jon Lebkowsky:08:45 Candy matrix
enoss:08:49 does their need to be a surveillance paradigm
enoss:08:49 ?
Doc Searls:08:58 St. Paul's definition of faith might not be far off our regard for the infrastructures we trust: "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."
Jon Lebkowsky:08:58 Perhaps faith is what we need in the absence of clear trust.
Jon Lebkowsky:08:59 What we need or what we grasp.
Epad Mac:08:59 Newlist: DISTRUST/Untrusted Entities
Doc Searls:09:00 Ed McCabe:
Doc Searls:09:00 "I have no use for rules. They only rule out the possiblity of brilliant exceptions."
Doc Searls:09:02 I first heard Roxanne as "...eye transaction costs" Interesing gestalt substitution there
Doc Searls:09:02 I first heard Roxanne as "...eye transaction costs" Interesing gestalt substitution there
Doc Searls:09:03 Distrust tends toward reciprocation? Else why the cold wars among us.
Christopher Mitchell:09:03 MAD was a relationship of trust, was it not?
Doc Searls:09:10 We might ask why we are talking about trust now. What are the contexts for that?
Epad Mac:09:10 DISCUSSION
Christopher Mitchell:09:10 I think that president was technically in the last century...
Nadia:09:11 Is this format amenable to going deeper/getting at insights?
Christopher Mitchell:09:11 "You won't know who to trust." - Russian dude in Sneakers - great movie about trust
enoss:09:11 why not trust as a default
enoss:09:11 ?
enoss:09:12 designing service with a default of trust invariably is more successful
Nadia:09:12 it feels very meta meta. Devil is in the details. Specific contexts or cases and then looking at it within that context. Then maybe look at generalisations and specificities
Doc Searls:09:13 Agree, Nadia. Not ideal. But it's kinda like they say about photograpy: the best camera is the one you have with you.
Matthew Rantanen:09:14@Chris SNEAKERS = EPIC!
Harold F.:09:14 Nadia, Doc, we do this in life all the time, but without thinking about it. Our decisions on whether and how much to trust friends or family, for example.
Nadia:09:15 What are 5 cases where trust is strong but shouldnt be, where there should be trust but there isn't, where trust is not needed and not present, and contexts where we have been able to ensforce trustful behaviour or infrastructure where there was abuse....
Epad Mac:09:15 Exercise: How do we build trust?
Doc Searls:09:16 I think one context is too much information. What I learned last night from Bill was that the NSA would rather have too much informatinn than the right information—in faith that "right" will be found within "too much.". Personalized advertising operates today on the same assumption. "Big Data" and all that.
Nadia:09:17 Any other cases guys?
enoss:09:18 capitalism operates in the same way @doc. there is a deeply implied value that more = better
Doc Searls:09:18 True, EN.
Doc Searls:09:18 True, EN.
Doc Searls:09:19 Perhaps, in a large sense, we no longer trust that growth is all."
Nadia:09:19 I guess another context is where there is little transparency about how data is interpreted and little ability to poke holes into those interpretations.
enoss:09:19 every con uses trust
enoss:09:19 magicians use trust
Christopher Mitchell:09:20 Want to create trust? Make a baby.
Doc Searls:09:20 Bumper sticker: "trust misdirection"
Christopher Mitchell:09:20 They come with trust
Nadia:09:23 E.g. trials against perpetrators of war crimes. You trust authority and the system. You do what you are told. If there is clear and unabiguous consensus that you will be judged by priciples higher than any orders or agendas/priorities of the day.This breeds trust I think
enoss:09:23 my mind is full of how exceptions to RULES are so important in trust
enoss:09:23 maybe not exceptions but flexibility
enoss:09:24 doing the right thing is more important than following the rule
Nadia:09:24 Yes but the right thing, those principles have to be explicit and reinforced in the public discourse.
enoss:09:25 @nadia yes explicit and yes reinforced but not always reducable to words
Nadia:09:25 I.e. doesn't matter whether you follow the law in the word, if your actions are in breach of xyz higher priciples you will be personally liable.
enoss:09:25 accountable > liable there
enoss:09:26 but I think we are saying the same thing
Robin:09:26 Elinor Ostrom's rules for maintaining a commons seems directly relevant:http://onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons
Nadia:09:26 ok so what is missing mechanisms and infrastructures and social relationships needed to be able to enforce them in a decentralised mannerto be able
Nadia:09:27 gah
Nadia:09:28 second attempt: what are missing 1) mechanisms 2) infrastructures and most importantly 3) shapes/compositions/qualities of social networks required to enable their enforcement in a decentralised wayneeded
Nadia:09:28 second attempt: what are missing 1) mechanisms 2) infrastructures and most importantly 3) shapes/compositions/qualities of social networks required to enable their enforcement in a decentralised wayneeded
enoss:09:28 trust is a necessary shortcut
enoss:09:29 trust always serves us well in the long term
enoss:09:29 in the short term maybe not
Jon Lebkowsky:09:31 In a context or system where trust begins to slip, there's an inevitable destabilizing effect on relationships. Both trust and distrust can be viral and self-reinforcing.
Nadia:09:38 I don't understand where this discussion or going or what the point is. Situation
Nadia:09:38 : we have massive breach of trust. And Huge incentives for continued breach of trust. So what os a viable and credible game plan? If not in this room then where is that conversation going to happen?
Matthew Rantanen:09:39 it has run its course...
Jon Lebkowsky:09:39 Yeah.
Jon Lebkowsky:09:39 Who's gonna tell David?
Matthew Rantanen:09:39 LOL
Epad Mac:09:40 David Q: What's the difference between trusting a human entity and trusting a device system/network?
Doc Searls:09:40 Good question, Nadia. "Good question" is what people say when they don't yet have an answer.
Nadia:09:40 We can brainwank about what's wrong. And all the ways in which it is wrong. Or make use of brains in the room to figure out how to move forward,.
Jon Lebkowsky:09:40 Agree.
Jon Lebkowsky:09:41 Thanks for adding "brainwank" to my vocabulary.
Nadia:09:41 Ok let's start with pieces of the puzzle that people in the room are working on?
enoss:09:41 @nadia good idea
enoss:09:41 I am trying to build clean networks
Nadia:09:42 There are at least 5 activists working on relevant projects. I want to hear about Ella's project, Chris and Sascha's work, Matt's thinking and work etc.
Doc Searls:09:42 My people are working on new tools for independence and engagement.
Doc Searls:09:42 My people are working on new tools for independence and engagement.
Jon Lebkowsky:09:42 We can talk about how democracy depends on trust, how well trust can scale, what the challenges are to trust in a context of cultural diversity.
Nadia:09:43 Democracy is broken. Looking to institutions that are captured by the very actors incentivising breach of trust makes little sense to me. Lets play with idea that you cannot rely on governments and institutions. Now what?
Camille:09:43 + 1 for Nadia's suggestion
Jon Lebkowsky:09:43Democracy isn't broken, it never worked.
Nadia:09:44 potato potato :)
Jon Lebkowsky:09:44 Good point.
Robin:09:44 How can we give power/control back to the governed? those that are weak and can't make the existing rules work for them?
Nadia:09:44 You Robin have your peers incorporated concept which is very interesting.
Robin:09:44 My approach has been naively to try to change the powerful's undersatnding of the important of the small
Doc Searls:09:44 I've always hated the notion that the Internet has "stakeholders" other than everybody.
Nadia:09:45 Ella what are you trying to build, where can we hear about it?
Robin:09:45 and we need to keep reminding the small that they have power as a group -- the whole community organizing thing.
Jon Lebkowsky:09:45Stakeholders kill vampires. Most of us aren't stakeholders.
Robin:09:45 (ndividuals have basically abdicatd their power to change to marketing of big companies/entities who make decidions for them.
Robin:09:46 Jon: which is why FOSS is so interested -- the platform (which is the government and creates the rules) was created by the participants
Jon Lebkowsky:09:46 Robin: I don't know that it was abdication. If someone breaks into your house and takes your television set, you haven't abdicated your television set, it's been ripped off.
Nadia:09:46 Ok. What is needed for rediscovering personal and collective power. Forget spectator sports of elections bla bla
Doc Searls:09:46 The big idea, the big hook that caught the big fish that was everybody, is the end-to-end stupid Internet. To trust the Net is to trust that everybody can participate. Put "stakeholders" in it, and you drive a stake through its heart
Robin:09:47 but do you go to the police? do you turst them to deal iwth for you and catch the theives?
Jon Lebkowsky:09:47 FOSS was created by some of the participants, though there were always hierarchies, some excluded and others accepted.
Jon Lebkowsky:09:47 FOSS was created by some of the participants, though there were always hierarchies, some excluded and others accepted.
Robin:09:47 or do you say -- the police will do nothing, I'm pissed but have no recourse
Doc Searls:09:47 Good, Nadia. Connecting personal and collective power is what the Net was made for. It's why we're here, methinks.
Christopher Mitchell:09:47 Doc: I think the stakeholder approach comes closest to giving everyone power to make decisions. You disagree? What is preferable?
Robin:09:48 remember: lunch discussion today on this topic of platforms/stakeholders/control
Rick:09:48 Ostronm talks about "polycentric governance," which ti me is an important step past "multistakeholderism."
Nadia:09:48 ok Doc, this is the tech infrastructure, but what are the socioeconomic infrastructures? For me it's knowing I am not reliant on huge chain I cannot control to access food and ater and other basic necessities for survival.
Jon Lebkowsky:09:48 Chris: when you talk about stakeholders, there's a danger that you exclude some who should be included.
Rick:09:48 "sorry, "Elinor Ostrom"
Doc Searls:09:49 If the "stakeholder approach" assumes that everybody has a stake, that's fine. But if it assumes that all the holders of stakes are states and corporations, I have a problem with it.
Christopher Mitchell:09:49 Jon: Agree but still unsure what is better approach.
Rick:09:49 The 8 rules that Robin read apply to Ostrom's polycentric concept.
Christopher Mitchell:09:49 I think stakeholder approach says if you want to be involved, get involved. If you don't, your loss.
Jon Lebkowsky:09:49 But it's complicated: exclusion is sometimes necessary, depending on the context.
enoss:09:49 the chat has now become > room
Christopher Mitchell:09:49Stakeholder approach vulnerable to being gamed but still don't see better approach
Nadia:09:50 What is needed for personal autonomy and freedome to organise social relationships in manner that incentivises healthy, trustful behaviours
Nadia:09:50 ?
Jon Lebkowsky:09:50 Chris: probably a wicked problem. Thinking of the Churchill quote about democracy.
Doc Searls:09:50 "Stake" means property, no? Or a claim to it?
Christopher Mitchell:09:50 Jon: yes
Christopher Mitchell:09:50 Jon: yes
enoss:09:50 important to note that "multistakeholder" has become a code word in Internet governance circles
ella:09:50 robin: to change the power structure between the large and the small, transfer wealth. in our society, wealth is agency, and with economic inequality, the small will always die.
Christopher Mitchell:09:50 To me, "stake" = interest in outcome
Jon Lebkowsky:09:50 Doc: "stake" means "an interest," not necessarily a property interest.
enoss:09:50 +1 @chris
Desiree:09:51 +1 @chris
sob:09:51 link to Gerck's article
sob:09:51 http://nma.com/mcg-mirror/trustdef.txt
Christopher Mitchell:09:51 I think Pepper will talk about this later - the stakeholder process is best hope to stop ITU takeover
Jon Lebkowsky:09:52 But I think it's hard to determine who has an interest or stake, in many of the contexts where we talk about stakeholders. So the trick is, how do you include those who should be included? And what is the form of inclusion?
Rick:09:52 Who counts as a stakeholder? Just the people who showed up in Istanbul last week?
Epad Mac:09:52 Nadia reports to larger group on chat side-conversation to this point...
Christopher Mitchell:09:52Those who show up are those who count- goal for us is to create ways for people to show upi
Matthew Rantanen:09:52@Chris Multi-stakeholder process
Jon Lebkowsky:09:53 One issue with democracy is that you're supposedly giving everyone a voice, but that can be an unmanageable number of voices. We try to resolve that through representation, but representatives are corruptible.
Doc Searls:09:54 In "what are we working on," I would like to hear EN et. al. on ICANN, Pepper on the ITU...
Epad Mac:09:54 David Q: Who or what do we trust the most
Nadia:09:55 Edgeryders builds massive open online ethnography & network analysis as a way to sift trhough large amounts of conversations. Then refine into observations, correlations...surface obstables and produce action plans around removing them. Sometimes this is in the domain of policy. Sometimes its fundraising for a key piece of infrastructures
Christopher Mitchell:09:55 I think the multistakeholder process is problematic, but less so than alternatives.
enoss:09:56 it exists for all adult companies and gambling companies in the US
enoss:09:56 it exists for all adult companies and gambling companies in the US
Doc Searls:09:56 When bank names were "Town Bank & Trust," what did they mean by "trust?" Just wondering.
enoss:09:56 >20% of the US is unbanked
Rick:09:56 I fear that multistakeholderism is so undefined that it can mean anything. Some see it as anything other than ITU control of the Net.
Nadia:09:56 if we are not having the conversation about what people are trying to build and how we can help one another, glue them together etc I dont see the point of the conversation. But that is just me.
Doc Searls:09:57 Agree, Rick. I want to hear specifics, though.
Christopher Mitchell:09:57 Rick: which is why some see it as so important to be involved as it acquires a definition
Rick:09:57 Agreed Chris
Doc Searls:09:57 I want to talk about it, Nadia, but apparently that's not the plan.
Nadia:09:58 Dewayne raised this on day 1. And I see a risk of a repeat of past conversations that just go around in circles.
Jon Lebkowsky:09:59 Agreed.
Doc Searls:10:00 Nadia, maybe host a "what am I working on" table for luch or dinner.
Christopher Mitchell:10:00 I trust my brain to be fooled in predictable ways
Nadia:10:01 @doc it feels pretty pointless
Nadia:10:01 very clear the interest is in brainwanking :(
Rick:10:47 nadia, you say that like it's a bad thing.
Christopher Mitchell:10:47 I love that Sascha had worked an XKCD comic into the notes about trust.
Desiree:10:50 link to the partkcular XKCD
Christopher Mitchell:10:51 Just above "How do we build trust"http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/hotels.png
Harold F.:10:57 Historically, commons did not suffer tragedy until enclosure movement.
Harold F.:10:57 "Tragedy of the commons" was developed to try to explain environmental pollution.
Harold F.:10:57 "Tragedy of the commons" was developed to try to explain environmental pollution.
Christopher Mitchell:10:58Harold: so the tragedy of the commons was actually fences?
Harold F.:10:58 Bloomington School has demonstrated viability of the commons.
Harold F.:10:58 Yes. The tragedy of the commons was robber barons with good press agents.
Harold F.:10:59 Mark Cooper did a good piece on "collaborative goods" some years back.
Harold F.:10:59 My write up here:http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/the-sustainable-economics-of-open-source-and-open-spectrum/
enoss:11:03 embrace chaos!
ella:11:04 This inability to deal with chaos has brought us what NSA has become.
db:11:05 I'm starting to I think my rant card is gonna be used on the commons but for now I'll post this here:https://app.box.com/s/jtltmk6noen9m3srmdrd
db:11:05 Oops didn't know I had lost my name
Nadia:11:18 You know the story about the french messageries and pink notes?
Harold F.:11:21 "!908: Vail Begins national advertising "one policy, one system, universal service."http://www.corp.att.com/history/milestones.html
Jon Lebkowsky:11:27Encryption is at the edges.
Sascha:11:27 [Cisco's Howard] Lock then pointed out that security remains a key concern, and that open systems like MANETs are potentially vulnerable to malicious code and mischievous behavior. As an anecdote, he noted that he would not want to rely on a mesh network to transmit safety information or personal critical data.
Sascha:11:28 (from July 2008)
Doc Searls:11:29 Something I wrote about this on a list:http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2014/08/22/whats-neutral-about-the-net/ Vint liked it.
Christopher Mitchell:11:29 So SDN just rides on top of TCP IP?
Jon Lebkowsky:11:30 Link re Sascha's post above:http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/35000/35500/35543/chap3.htm
enoss:11:30 @chris it uses/facilitates tcp/ip
Doc Searls:11:30 One rhetorical body-snatch of the Internet is "broadband." The ITU and the carriers go out of their way to avoid saying "Internet" when "broadband" will do.
Christopher Mitchell:11:30 So SDN violates the end to end principel?
Christopher Mitchell:11:30 So SDN violates the end to end principel?
enoss:11:30 no
enoss:11:30 you use sdn to deploy networks in a more efficient
enoss:11:30 way
Christopher Mitchell:11:31 I think I have a handle on NFV but I just don't yet get SDN
enoss:11:32 it is sharing and efficient allocation of resources, not poverty
Doc Searls:11:32 "What's driving Uber and AirBnB is poverty"
enoss:11:32 please unpack that assertion
Christopher Mitchell:11:32Poverty for who? Drivers or riders?
Christopher Mitchell:11:33 We should address that later. I think there is some serious disagreement
Harold F.:11:33 I would stipulate the willingness to take chances or do without goes to the nature of the trust offered.
Christopher Mitchell:11:33 My issue with uber is that it is an abuse of insurance, other standard ways of doing business in most cases
Susie C:11:34 "Sharing economy" providers are driving cars and renting rooms not because they're seeking to engage in a social exchange, but because they need money
Harold F.:11:34 For example, the willingness to eliminate a landline represents a willingness to rely on a less good substitue. There is still a level of trust in that the mobile device is better than no device. I understand the limitations. But I make a decision to save money because I have no alternative.
Harold F.:11:35 This is as opposed to people who think mobile phones *are* as good, and then are surprised when they are less reliable.
enoss:11:35 @harold it is not at all about "I make a decision to save money because I have no alternative."
Susie C:11:36 airbnb and Uber wouldn't exist without a large group of precarious workers who need to make money. When this group talks about the "sharing economy" we seem to be focusing on the users and not the providers of the services
Christopher Mitchell:11:36Susie: would liketo see the data ... was surprised at how AirBnB in Istanbul is dominated by landlords, hotels others who are definitely not in poverty
enoss:11:36 it is because mobile is good enough and fixed voice is a waste at that point
enoss:11:36 @susie there are huge classes of providers for whom that is not the case
Nadia:11:36 Guys help me here: Does the distinction between the transport layer and the applications layer a good framework for thinking about trust in socioeconomic context?
Nadia:11:36 Guys help me here: Does the distinction between the transport layer and the applications layer a good framework for thinking about trust in socioeconomic context?
Harold F.:11:37 enoss, depends on for whom. CDC data shows that poverty is highest correlation to going mobile only. More so than age.
Susie C:11:37 @Chris agree, but these companies make it very difficult to obtain that data
Camille:11:37 Takes us back to the 'from participation to exploitation' argument:http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2141/1948
Harold F.:11:37 Q is can you afford backup fixed if you want it.
Christopher Mitchell:11:37Nadia: Layer separation results in not needing trust
Robin:11:37 susie, I don't agree with that statement about airbnb and uber thriving on precarious workforce
enoss:11:37 @harold maybe so, but that is, at best, a pluratiy. not even a majority
Nadia:11:37 So Suzies point about Airbnb and Uber and other actors in the poverty economuy?
Doc Searls:11:38 Airbnb stopped trusing us, and vice versa:http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2013/05/28/lets-help-airbnb-rebuild-the-bridge-it-just-burned/Just saying.
Robin:11:38 a lot of people are doing it because they want the flexibility,to work hours of their choosing, to supplement their income in ways of their control.
Harold F.:11:38 enoss. Sure. For some is wholly adequate and landline is redundant. Or features of landline (higher voice Q, greater reliability) are not as relevant.
Robin:11:38 for the VAST bulk of participants, these services are supplemental income.
Christopher Mitchell:11:38 I do agree that people are lookingto supplement income often because they are screwed by our economic system. Unsure if they are precarious.
Nadia:11:38 Ok so Law is transport layer? What aspects of access and management of commons, housing, roads, water etc need to be transport layer?
Harold F.:11:38 Describing one trend in a complex set.
Harold F.:11:39 But in any case, is different from *trust*.
enoss:11:39 @harold but a landline is NOT a necessity
Harold F.:11:39 Put another way: "Hobson's Choice" is not a trust issue.
Christopher Mitchell:11:39@enoss - Not a necessity but the data does show that people wth limited income are the ones overwhelmingly dropping it.
Christopher Mitchell:11:40 At least the CDC data
Christopher Mitchell:11:40 At least the CDC data
enoss:11:40 the choice to not own a tesla is also highly correlated with not being able to afford it
Doc Searls:11:40 "bearer" conveys support. The IP protocol supports what's above and below, while being oblivious to both. Likewise, an open operating sytem (e.g. linux) supports applications above and hardware below, without limiting what can be done with either.
db:11:40 There's definitely something to unpack wrt lots of barriers to establishing businesses that wouldn't need these platofrms
Harold F.:11:40 Nadia: what you are talking about is public utility. critical services too important for private market.
Harold F.:11:40 Talk to me later. Is a passion of mine.
Jon Lebkowsky:11:40 Dropping landline is an acknowledgement of needless redundancy.
db:11:40 so AirBnB benefits from not only lots of poor people that need to supplement their income
enoss:11:40 @chris do you think university students have high incomes?
enoss:11:40 this is completely untethered from their means
db:11:40 but also the fact that the hotel industry extracts monopoly rates
Nadia:11:41 What needs to be in the transport layer in society and follow similar principles/protocols to TCP/IP in a society for incentives being compatible with conditions required for trust?
Christopher Mitchell:11:41 Jon : needless redundancy not the case for people who worry if their children can call 9/11 in emergency.
db:11:41 and there are tons of regulations that keep small actors to eenter the industry
Doc Searls:11:41 It's important to make clear that the hourglass model applies to things other than networks alone. The electric grid doesn't care what applications or hardware use it. Same with other forms of infrastructure.
Susie C:11:41 @ Robin yes, but that's also because we can no longer trust traditional employers to treat us well. I doubt that most Taskrabbits wouldn't rather be making decent and predictable wageshttp://m.fastcompany.com/3027355/pixel-and-dimed-on-not-getting-by-in-the-gig-economy
db:11:41 ^^that
enoss:11:42 @susie you said "no longer". when was the time when employers could be trusted to treat employees well
enoss:11:42 especially if you globalize the answer
Jon Lebkowsky:11:42 Chris: correct, so those people keep their landlines.
Nadia:11:43 MMm enoss, when you had to live with consequences of your actions. If you have to face the pitchfork in the shop where you buy your food....
Nadia:11:43 MMm enoss, when you had to live with consequences of your actions. If you have to face the pitchfork in the shop where you buy your food....
enoss:11:43 @susie chat may not be the best mode for this as we more agree than disagree but it is tough to nuance here
Christopher Mitchell:11:43 Jon: if they can afford. And if the phone company still offers service.
Christopher Mitchell:11:43 By the way, this chat fucking sucks
enoss:11:44 @nadia I don't understand
enoss:11:44 but pitchforks scare me
Susie C:11:44 @ Elliot agree, this is especially difficult to navigate on my phone
Jon Lebkowsky:11:44 Chris: I'm only talking about people who drop their landlines. I understand that some don't, for various reasons. What I'm saying is that you might not drop strictly as a cost issue, but because you don't see the point of the extra line.
Nadia:11:44 Look at where politicians live wth respect to their constitutencies
Nadia:11:45 and Avaaz strategy of putting up big posters demonising decison makers in the neighbourhoods where they live
enoss:11:45 @nadia politicians suck
Christopher Mitchell:11:45 Jon: Yes - there are those that drop just cuz they don't want it. However the data sugget that tho those who have dropped tend to have lower incomes. They may want it but just cannot justify it
Nadia:11:45 Im a politician apparently.
enoss:11:46 (looking at avaaz now)
Jon Lebkowsky:11:46 Does the data fail to show why? Only the income correlation? Might be worth further research, if so.
Christopher Mitchell:11:46 I view dropping my landline as a rational economic decision. I am taking a greater risk in terms of public safety and I have phone quality (which makes me use it less) but I would like to have it if ther ewas an option at a reasonable price.
Nadia:11:46 This goes back to Ella's point. About not being at the recieving end of shit that happens to people from other socioeconomic contexts or class.
Christopher Mitchell:11:46Sorry about typos, very hard to proof in this stupid tiny box
Camille:11:47 * Sidecomment - I'm confirming that a Google search about hourglass model brings more pictures of women body types than articles about internet architecture!
Christopher Mitchell:11:47Camille: how about martini model?
Robin:11:47 my mind is imploding with too many conversations simultatenously!!
Robin:11:47 my mind is imploding with too many conversations simultatenously!!
Nadia:11:47 lol @Camille. Why go for a martini when you can have an hourglass
Robin:11:48 Susie -- from freelancer's union survey of 5k people nationwide: .Nearly 9 in 10 workers affiliated with Freelancers Union, a 250,000-member nonprofit, say they wouldn't return to traditional work if they had the choice. This sentiment is especially true for millennials, who will make up 75% of the workforce by 2025
Jon Lebkowsky:11:48http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cellphone-only-more-americans-dropping-landlines/
db:11:48 @Robin I think those life choices need to be contextualized
Nadia:11:48 Robin: I wouldn't trust what unions say . In Sweden they protect insiders e.g.
Robin:11:48 re eliot's point, see this article sara wrote last week:http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-horowitz-work-freelancers-20140826-story.html
db:11:49 based on prior experience of say, ever feeling that a company would take care of you
Jon Lebkowsky:11:49 That article says that the # of people dropping landlines is dropping.
Robin:11:49 currently 40% of the US workforce are working this way.
Doc Searls:11:49 Inhttp://searls.com/end-to-end/ I just put a .pdf of the part of my book that visits end-to-end (sourcing Reed & Clark), the commons (sourcing Ostrom and Hyde), the studpid network (sourcing David I) and the Giant Zero (mentioned yesterday). It's from a late draft.
Andrew:11:49 regarding end-to-end encryption, a plug for EFF's Encrypt the Web project:https://www.eff.org/encrypt-the-web-report
Robin:11:49 we need to offer worker protections in other ways.
db:11:49 Definitely agree on that^
Jon Lebkowsky:11:49 Not all homes have phones: About 3 percent have no landline or cellphone. About 9 percent have only landlines, and about 48 percent have both. Five years ago, 17 percent had only landlines, and about 60 percent had landlines and cellphones. Younger people rely more on cellphones: Nearly two-thirds of people in their late 20s live in households with only cellphones. Only 14 percent of people 65 and older use only cellphones. Men are a bit more likely to shun landlines than women. Poor adults are much more likely than higher-income people to have only cellphones. The Midwest is the most wireless region: About 44 percent live in cellphone-only homes. The South and West were nearly as high. In the Northeast, 25 percent live in cellphone-only households.
Jon Lebkowsky:11:49 (That's from the article.)
Christopher Mitchell:11:50@Jon, I don't want to flood the chat with it but Harold had a great analysis of this most recent CDC report on wireless trends -http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201407.pdf
Nadia:11:50 Autarchy and interoperability. The guilds as basis for modern urban democracy
Robin:11:50 but right now, for uber and airbnb, your statement about being drive by poverty is wrong. For taskrabbit, it is possible. But as I said yesterday, this isn't a sharing economy problem, this is a us government values problem.
Harold F.:11:50 I will not use my 3 minute rant for the IP Transition stuff. I will not use my 3minute rant for the IP Transition stuff . . .
Jon Lebkowsky:11:50 Note that poor adults are more likely to have only cellphones.
Jon Lebkowsky:11:50 Note that poor adults are more likely to have only cellphones.
Jon Lebkowsky:11:50 Doesn't say why.
Nadia:11:51 Fraternitas Mercatorumhttp://english.lasindias.com/fraternitas-mercatorum
Jon Lebkowsky:11:51 Flooding the chat seems to be the order of the day. *8^)
Jon Lebkowsky:11:52 The CBS article I was quoting referenced CDC research as well.
Christopher Mitchell:11:52thinking the IGF discussion fell through the cracks
db:11:52 I don't think we can separate out the economic conditions that these companies developed in and the perceived options of millennials
Jon Lebkowsky:11:52 I'm trying to follow the voice conversation and the chat... way too many threads.
Susie C:11:53 @ Robin I've been a freelancer for my entire working life and have never trusted the freelancers union to have my best interests at heart. I don't see them pushing for substantive reforms
Rick:11:53 Vint Cerf: "IP on Everything."
Nadia:11:53 Agreed with Susie Cagle Robin.
Christopher Mitchell:11:54 Jon: I think it would be easier if the chat wasn't absurdly small
enoss:11:54 @nadia yes unions suck mostly as well. centralization generally fails and protects insiders
Nadia:11:54 The only people Unions speak for is their members. Same for Peers.
Jon Lebkowsky:11:54 Chris: Probably so.
enoss:11:54 but air bnb/uber are much more decentralized
Jon Lebkowsky:11:54 I think I'd rather just have chat, maybe we need an IRC channel.
enoss:11:55 I am not defending those particular companies but rather the sharing economy
Robin:11:55 my 8 year old htought I was dead for 2 hurs that day because teachers decided to tell the 3rd graders at the end of the day that a plane from boston to dc in the morning had crashed. I was on the early plane and not dead.
Nadia:11:55 Enoss: you cannot take one player in isolation. you nee to look at what else is happening in parallel. And the outcome on the individual at the wrong end of the power spectrum.
Susie C:11:55 @ Elliot there's a high bar to entry -- the ownership of a new car or a home. Airbnb providers in SF who are renters are now facing eviction for violating their leases
Susie C:11:55 @ Elliot there's a high bar to entry -- the ownership of a new car or a home. Airbnb providers in SF who are renters are now facing eviction for violating their leases
Jon Lebkowsky:11:56 Robin, that's terrible.
enoss:11:56 @susie but that is a failure of regulation, not asharing
enoss:11:56 (gah this chat sucks)
Susie C:11:56 in the case of renting perhaps but not car ownership
Nadia:11:57 Yes I would love to be able to run around dressed in a purple bunny suit yelling we are the body electric and have everyone in a state of delirious unbridled joy and freedom. But getting to the party costs fuel that someone else is paying for in blod.
enoss:11:57 the ownership of a new car in the US is INCREDIBLY highly subsidized
brewster:11:57 I would like thoughts on "How to build a trustable Internet"
enoss:11:57 and is such a poor use of capital
enoss:11:57 @susie take a look at thishttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-16/where-worlds-unsold-cars-go-die
brewster:11:57 this seems like a good group to figure out what we should be doing towards a trustable Internet
Doc Searls:11:58 Life is broken. Proof: we all die.
Robin:11:58 @susie survey done with elance-odesk here. Interesting to me that you don't trust freelancers. I have no opinion but now noted data point.https://fu-web-storage-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/content/filer_public/7c/45/7c457488-0740-4bc4-ae45-0aa60daac531/freelancinginamerica_report.pdf
Nadia:11:58 Ok so we need tools that help us see interdependencies and gauge the implications of one deicision on other things we care about.
Robin:11:58 that was link to what I thought was a 2014 survey
Desiree:11:59 @Brewster : starting with understanding current lack of trust or risks
Nadia:12:00 How are we back in the non discussion about what we do moving forward?
Susie C:12:00 @ Robin thanks for the link. I notice that many if not most of these surveys obfuscate who a "freelancer" is, ie what industry, skills, background class/education
Susie C:12:02 can be a great existence in some industries, terrible in others
Nadia:12:02 I get the interest is "how do we make money of off stuff". Where are we talking about investing in secruing the means for us to continue doing things and having a modicum of freedom?
Camille:12:02 Dear all, I unfortunately have to leave during the lunch break. Using the chat to thank you all for a fantastic day of conversations and learning. Hoping to see all of you soon and wishing you a great BH14!
Camille:12:02 Dear all, I unfortunately have to leave during the lunch break. Using the chat to thank you all for a fantastic day of conversations and learning. Hoping to see all of you soon and wishing you a great BH14!
Christopher Mitchell:14:01Something pretty cool that was announced at the IGF last week: the Internet Declaration of Internet Rights and Freedom:http://africaninternetrights.org/
Christopher Mitchell:14:02 I meant the African Declaration of Internet Rights and Freedom, sorry
Jon Lebkowsky:14:07 Oh, good. From the discussion at lunch, I had the impression that IGF was a clusterf*ck with no deliverables.
ella:14:08 I object to that categorization. Clusterfucks are far more enjoyable.
Jon Lebkowsky:14:09 Heh.
Doc Searls:14:09 When I grow up I want to be as skinny as Pepper.
Jon Lebkowsky:14:10 He doesn't eat dessert.
Nadia:14:16 Is there a difference between what trust is and how it's created?
Nadia:14:17 Enhanced cooperation
Nadia:14:19 IGFICANNITU
Nadia:14:20 Where does IGF get its money from?
Jon Lebkowsky:14:20 UN?
Nadia:14:20 does anyone know for sure?
Jon Lebkowsky:14:21 Yes. Funding from various stakeholder groups
Jon Lebkowsky:14:21http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/funding
Nadia:14:21 thnks!
Jon Lebkowsky:14:21 Internet connectivity here is sloooow at the moment.
Alexa:14:22 Isn't the terminology 'multi-stakesholder' a political model that non dominant oppose at IGF?
Jon Lebkowsky:14:22 So you might have trouble getting to that page.
Jon Lebkowsky:14:23 "The Internet Governance Forum is funded through donations from the various stakeholder groups. The host countries bear the majority of the costs of holding the annual IGF meeting in their country. While the IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through extra-budgetary contributions paid into a multi-donor Trust Fund administered by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). All contributions are administered and accounted for in accordance with the United Nations Financial Regulations and Rules and other applicable directives, procedures and practices. "
Jon Lebkowsky:14:23 "The Internet Governance Forum is funded through donations from the various stakeholder groups. The host countries bear the majority of the costs of holding the annual IGF meeting in their country. While the IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through extra-budgetary contributions paid into a multi-donor Trust Fund administered by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). All contributions are administered and accounted for in accordance with the United Nations Financial Regulations and Rules and other applicable directives, procedures and practices. "
Nadia:14:23 what does trust mean or look like or result in in "mlti-stakeholder" processes?
Jon Lebkowsky:14:23 Probably depends in part on the stakeholders, and in part on the processes?
Jon Lebkowsky:14:23 I.e. I don't know that you could generalize.
Jon Lebkowsky:14:24IANA=Internet Assigned Names Authority
Nadia:14:24 ICANN: internet resource distribution but govs have no conttrolling voice?
Sascha:14:24 Anyone else having trouble getting out to the Internet?
Jon Lebkowsky:14:24 Yes.
Jon Lebkowsky:14:25Somebody nudge Dewayne.
Nadia:14:25 *CONFUSED* What are we talking about and what does it have to do with trust?
Alexa:14:25 @sascha yes.
Nadia:14:25 Gak? another acronym. Domain names. Trust?
Sascha:14:25 Nadia: internet governance
Jon Lebkowsky:14:26 There do seem to be a lot of trust issues within the IGF community. Or should I say "among the IGF stakeholders"?
Nadia:14:26 Ok. So can we map those trust issues and why you should care about them for dummies?
Nadia:14:26 or noobs.
Jon Lebkowsky:14:27 That would be a good thing to do, I would think, if we're going to talk about it at all. Make it a case study.
Doc Searls:14:27 EN: give us links and give us good instructions
ella:14:27 I'd love to have some conversation about the ungovernance forum and why people felt the need for that.
ella:14:29 As I said during this IGF, if your network is vulnerable to governance, you need a new network.
Nadia:14:30 we have a competing set of models with regard to how we deal with new means of communication which is global in scope and where there are large number actors who want to gover or shape it in different ways.
Nadia:14:30 we have a competing set of models with regard to how we deal with new means of communication which is global in scope and where there are large number actors who want to gover or shape it in different ways.
Nadia:14:30 The turst issues is what trust mechanism do we want to rely on. What are weaknesses of each of the models.
enoss:14:31 [is the Internet broken for everyone right now?]
Nadia:14:31 ITU engenders trust in particular ways, positive and negative, engendered in its history.
Jon Lebkowsky:14:31 @enoss Yes, we told Dewayne about it.
enoss:14:31 @jon thx
Nadia:14:32 ok trust models and trust frameworks.
Alexa:14:32 I was in a meeting in Berlin where two terms vis a vis a discussion on ICANN and IGF were controversial. 'Ecosystem' and multi-stakeholder. Does anyone know what and why this was the case?
Jon Lebkowsky:14:33 Good question. +1
Alexa:14:33 retype: 'multi-stakeholder'
Nadia:14:33 The promise of ICANN was that for once givs would not be in the priveledged position, and that this fundamentally breaks the promise of ICANN
Alexa:14:34 I love watching Binney listening to the convesrations.
Nadia:14:34 lol
Jon Lebkowsky:14:34 I was just thinking the same thing.
Nadia:14:35 ok so where is this convesation going beyond this is what is wrong with all these acronym organisations?
Alexa:14:35 He looked skeptical when Bill was saying that Schneider thought the NSA cold not break encryption.
Jon Lebkowsky:14:35 Heh.
Sascha:14:37 Best part of my time at IGF was going on safari w/ Pepper afterward...
Nadia:14:38 Matt: taksed to work with indigenous populations from around world that reach out to native population on tech issues etc
ella:14:39 Nadia: while the specific theme of this year is trust, Bighook is also an event about the Internet and how we can help with its current issues, which is what we're talking about.
Robin:14:41 this session is a waste of time to me, andit feelslike 60% of people not paying attention
Robin:14:41 this session is a waste of time to me, andit feelslike 60% of people not paying attention
Nadia:14:42 Agreed. Get a room?
db:14:42 Yeah...
ella:14:43 Given that what we've heard is that the IGF is literally designed to ensure that decisions arent made... yeah.
db:14:43 though I am really digging the info about the indigenous pov
ella:14:45 definitely.
Robin:14:50 we (Veniam) have been talking with an African telco (nigeria, uganda, kenya) to provide internet access by the minute with ultra small data plans.
Robin:14:50 bottom of the pyramid.
db:14:50 Is that Glo?
Robin:14:51 using our boxes in taxis and public buses, people without phones can have phone address/mailboxes. They pay to sync messages, and go surf quickly. They can't afford to pay by the day or by the month.
Nadia:14:51 I wrote this on tech and policy on the All Africa Futures Forum blog for those interestedhttp://www.foresightfordevelopment.org/ffd-blog/all-our-futures-and-africa
Robin:14:51 business model is that taxi/bus drivers become the medidle men entrepreneurs providing hotspots.
db:14:51 of course don't have to say if still negotiating. Didn't think about that
Robin:14:51 and devices
ella:14:53 ...and this is why it's problematic that the IGF panels were so white, male, and rich world dominated.
ella:14:54 ..and why it's deeply dangerous when folks like Vint use their platforms to give credence to the legitimacy of censorship because "some countries aren't ready for the whole internet"
db:14:54 @Nadia - familiar with Odomosu's work?http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/2229/tolu_odumosu.html
Nadia:14:56 @db: no I wasn't, thank you!
Harold F.:14:58 "I fight for the users." --Tron
Harold F.:14:59 ICANN has boatloads of money, thanks to registry fees.
Harold F.:15:00 ISOC also has chunk 'o change based on .org revenue.
Harold F.:15:00 ISOC also has chunk 'o change based on .org revenue.
Nadia:15:00 Losing the plot on trust.
Matt S:15:00 A lot of this conversation appears to be assuming that there is a meaningful difference between governments, civil society and business.
Harold F.:15:01 This not a bad thing necessarily. Lord knows we fought for it back in the Day.
Matt S:15:01 Follow the money
Nadia:15:01 MY forum is better than yours.
Nadia:15:01 That's right, it's better than yours.
Harold F.:15:01 Nadia, yeah, we kinda lost track of the trust thing. I tried.
Matt S:15:01 i wish there was more of a differnece
Sascha:15:02 More ICANN Hacking:https://ting.com/blog/tucows-ceo-lobbies-for-free-wireless-internet-in-africa/
enoss:15:03 @matt I think you would be (pleasantly) surprised to see the distinctions in the ICANN context
Matt S:15:03 except the corporations fund a lot of the civil society actors
Matt S:15:03 and the influence of money in politics are well established
Nadia:15:04 Uh is this conversation about which forum is better really relevant to most people in the room?
enoss:15:04 not the ICANN civil society folks
enoss:15:05 I can share details with you offline if you are interested
Matt S:15:05 sure, thanks
unnamed:15:06 So what IS the agenda for these fora?
unnamed:15:08 Marleen: and how thus IGF, ICANN relate to the IETF?
ella:15:08 stopping governments from making decisions, yes?
enoss:15:08 IETF has a role in ICANN in a couple of different roles
enoss:15:08 IETF has a role in ICANN in a couple of different roles
Matt S:15:10 in reality multistakeholderism undermines national sovreignity - - we really cannot have this conversation with any legitimacy without more non-US perspectives represented
Doc Searls:15:14 "A neutral power is never neutral because it always tilts toward power"
ella:15:21 on that note, it's worth remembering that we only got employment rights the first time around through force.
enoss:15:21 topic = miscellaneous
Sascha:15:21 oooOOOooo -- we should do key signing!
db:15:22 Just for the record when I said the quote doc just typed, the first "power" is platform
db:15:22 "a 'neutral' platform is never neutral because it always tilts towards power."
Doc Searls:15:23 Thanks for the correction.
db:15:23 sure!
Sascha:15:24 topic = how to build a trustable Internet
Sascha:15:24 one option: www.commotionwireless.net ;)
enoss:15:28 just what I said over here
Christopher Mitchell:15:29 Let's all put a pole on our properoty and see how well that goes
Christopher Mitchell:15:29 Not all ROW fees are bribery or unreasonable
Christopher Mitchell:15:29 As for the Internet Archive access to bandwdith, they have a rather unique deal you won't find in your city
Christopher Mitchell:15:30 And finally, a network has to be pretty robust before people will actually use it rather than Comcast
Brough:16:49 Yes Chris, but the threshold to be better than Comcast is pretty low - nobody trusts Comcast to treat them fairly or to provide any customer support.
Brough:16:50 Also, while the Archive may have very low cost bandwidth, the cost of Internet bandwidth is usually a small percentage (3%-5%?) of an ISP's cost.
Christopher Mitchell:16:52Brough: I wonder if you would disagree with this: providing the kind of uptime that Comcast has is pretty difficult. I think people wil flock back to Comcast if the network is unavailable with any frequency.
Brough:16:52 No, it's not that hard to provide uptime. Does require some redundancy...
Brough:16:52 No, it's not that hard to provide uptime. Does require some redundancy...
Christopher Mitchell:16:53 OK - I hear regularly from people from WISPs for instance that they have uptime problems. Perhaps an unrepresentative sample. Also true of a fair number of DSL providers in rural areas
Brough:16:54 Rural is certainly more difficult than urban, as redundancy can be more expensive.
Brough:16:55 But rural frequently doesn't even have competition from Comcast.
Christopher Mitchell:16:56 true story - but the flippancy that I perceived from Brewster worried me about how easy it is to throw up towers and start providing service. Those types of approaches have resulted in poor uptime in my experience, in urban areas.
Brough:16:58 Yes, I don't there is an active management requirement to keep a network up. You can't make the capital investment and then skimp on the on-going work.
Brough:16:58 whoops. slight garble... typing too fast
db:17:13 Am I remembering correctly that we can't copy and paste into this document?
Epad Mac:17:14 copy and paste into the left hand side should work fine
db:17:15 it did!
Epad Mac:17:15 yay!!!!
Doc Searls:17:22 Now there's a slogan: "We don't have to be as bad as the other guys."
Jon Lebkowsky:17:24"Developing trust is not the only pathway to success in a big corporation."
Doc Searls:17:24 "Distrust your way to the top." Sounds lika an HBR piece.
Doc Searls:17:28 "Nothing will happen" link:http://www.mi2.hr/en/programi-i-projekti/nista-se-nece-dogoditi/
unnamed:17:31 Nadia turns floor over to Binny
Doc Searls:17:33 Bill: "The greatest threat to our country since the Civil War."
Christopher Mitchell:17:33Binney's parents were probably a bit put off by the Palmer raids...
Doc Searls:17:34 "Stand up. Be Americans." Tell the feds to fix this or you're fired."
Doc Searls:17:34 Harold: Inspire people to believe in their own power.
Doc Searls:17:35 "People live so long and so well that they don't realize what's happening to them." non-verbatim from Lord of the Rings. (Look it up.)
Doc Searls:17:35 "People live so long and so well that they don't realize what's happening to them." non-verbatim from Lord of the Rings. (Look it up.)
Doc Searls:17:36 Think of yourselves as actors. Don't passively accept.
Doc Searls:17:37 Robin: climate change is bigger. Also worn out on it.
Doc Searls:17:37 fwiw, I think Climate change and saving the Net (for itself and from surveillance cancer) are related. We need the fully capable Net to save us all.
enoss:17:38 I think twas ever thus
enoss:17:38 I continue to challenge people as to when it was ever different (other than scale)
Andrew:17:39 I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention that people can support an NSA reform bill. There's still a chance it can make it through this session. There is disagreement on whether it's worth it, but it does move things forward
enoss:17:40 PLAN B!
ella:17:41 you mean like USAFreedumber?
Andrew:17:41 yes I do
Andrew:17:41 I don't like it
Andrew:17:41 but it is reform
ella:17:41 really? is it?
Andrew:17:42 let's talk in person
ella:17:42 maybe, maybe, if you happen to be an American.
ella:17:42 and if still expands capabilities even inside the us.
ella:17:43 and it is so radically far from anything that looks like a real solution that it's insulting.
Andrew:17:44 let's talk in person
Epad Mac:17:44 Music Plays
Jon Lebkowsky:20:47 Amen, brother.
Christopher Mitchell:20:48Harold: Do what we can, as we can, supporting and respected each other.
Christopher Mitchell:20:49Whoever goes next, good luck.
Christopher Mitchell:20:52 Old people don't need food?
Doc Searls:20:52 TTOTYFN: The Terror of Thirty Years From Now
Harold F.:20:52 They get Ensure.
Christopher Mitchell:20:52 And improv 3 minute card
Harold F.:20:53 It's a meeting. Stand up as the Spirit moves you.
Susie C:20:53 Soylent
Christopher Mitchell:20:55Where did the fish go? We still got the hook...
Christopher Mitchell:21:00 At IGF, we were a bit horrified to hear that some folks wanted to move their data storage to the US because no matter how bad the FISA system is, it was a legal system and they had no such system.
Christopher Mitchell:21:04Goes back to platform ownerships
Christopher Mitchell:21:05Seem to recall Bruce Schneier being asked to back down by his employer last year... he said "fire me" - not that Sascha should do that, just a reminder
Christopher Mitchell:21:07Amazon focuses more on fucking their own workforce...
Christopher Mitchell:21:08When all hope is lost, there is nothing left to worry about ....
Harold F.:21:09 suddenly, my obesity seems much more like a survival strategy.
Christopher Mitchell:21:10Harold: there must be a mathematical formula for best strategy in terms of being healthy for x years while putting on enough pounds for the final years
Christopher Mitchell:21:11Sascha: still have a job?
Christopher Mitchell:21:17Derek: Need to pick strategic battles we can win with good optics.
ella:21:17 this is a fascinatingly ahistorical comment.
ella:21:18 if we fight small batttles here, we're gonna literally kill the species.
Christopher Mitchell:21:18 The question is whether we have a strategy than can win
Christopher Mitchell:21:19 that, not thaan
Doc Searls:21:19 small battles do not preclude large ones. They may be the most or best any one or few of us can do. Think AND logic, not OR
Christopher Mitchell:21:20 Doc +1 - as Harold preached it
Jon Lebkowsky:21:23 +1 to Derek's "small battles."
Sascha:21:25 Small battles are important, but we need a progressive think tank/public interest org that won't shy from hard battles too.
Doc Searls:21:26 Seems to me you need to start one, Sascha. You've got your first constituents right here. The timing of what you shared was not coincidental, seems to me.
Jon Lebkowsky:21:27 Sascha: +1
ella:21:27 @Sascha: dear jesus do we fucking need that. I am so tired of statist, liberal activist orgs that fold at the first hurdle.
Jon Lebkowsky:21:28 I'd also like to see an org that will get behind a meetup strategy to facilitate the kinds of meetings/salons I was suggesting.
Jon Lebkowsky:21:28 It's hard to do as an organization, because it can be resource-intensive.
Jon Lebkowsky:21:29 The Batshit Crazy Party