Request For Balance
draft-bollow-wisdomtaskforce-10.txt

For changes since the previous version see here.



WisdomTaskForce.org                                            N. Bollow
Internet-Draft                                       GoalTree Consulting
Intended status: Informational                         November 13, 2014
Expires: May 17, 2015


          Plan to Establish an International Wisdom Task Force
                    draft-bollow-wisdomtaskforce-10

Abstract

   This memo calls for the creation of a new governance forum named
   "International Wisdom Task Force" (IWTF).  The main purpose of the
   IWTF is to facilitate international consensus-seeking discussions
   regarding governance actions that may be decided by national
   parliaments.











{Internet-Draft boilerplate removed because it was causing misunderstandings.
Even if the Internet-Drafts publication mechanism is used to solicit feedback
from the technical community among others, it is not intended for WisdomTF to
be in some way part of IETF or an expansion of the scope of IETF.  That said,
WisdomTF's objectives (to make good recommendations that will work in practice)
can only be achieved if, besides people who focus on the public policy
objectives, there is significant participation of persons who understand how
things work at the technical level, as well as the socioeconomic dynamics
among the people and organizations who make things work.}
















Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 1]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Avoidance of Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.  Start-up process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  Draft Scope Statement for IWTF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Draft Working Directives for IWTF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Fundamental Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Disclosure requirements for IWTF participation . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  WG Working Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.4.  "E-gathering" electronic communication infrastructure  . . 12
       4.4.1.  Software freedom requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.4.2.  Accessibility and compatibility requirements . . . . . 13
     4.5.  Request For Action (RFA) Publication Procedures  . . . . . 13
     4.6.  Overall Rough Consensus Endorsement  . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.7.  WG Creation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.7.1.  Initial Informal Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.7.2.  Terms of Reference Endorsement . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.7.3.  Secretariat Actions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.8.  WG Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.8.1.  WG Dissolution by Rough Consensus  . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.8.2.  WG Dissolution due to Disendorsement . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.8.3.  WG Dissolution due to Dysfunction  . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.9.  Sustaining Members and the Secretariat . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.9.1.  Categories of Sustaining Membership  . . . . . . . . . 16
         4.9.1.1.  Country Members  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
         4.9.1.2.  International Organization Members . . . . . . . . 17
         4.9.1.3.  Sustaining Civil Society Members . . . . . . . . . 17
       4.9.2.  Committee of Sustaining Members  . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       4.9.3.  Secretariat Funding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       4.9.4.  Start-up phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       4.9.5.  Sustained operations phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       4.9.6.  Transition from start-up phase to sustained
               operations phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       4.9.7.  Funding commitments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       4.9.8.  Changes to the IWTF Working Directives . . . . . . . . 19
       4.9.9.  Further Responsibilities of the Secretariat  . . . . . 20
   5.  Draft Terms of Reference for Some Initial Working-Groups . . . 21
     5.1.  WG on limiting greenhouse gas emissions  . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.2.  WG on privacy protection in the context of information
           and communication technologies.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.3.  WG on the eradication of mass poverty  . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.4.  WG on standing documents on the deliberative process . . . 22
     5.5.  WG on framework for democratic governance of global
           matters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.6.  WG on Government Activities to Further Sustainable
           Digital Culture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.7.  WG on a framework for regulation of online identity



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 2]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


           systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.8.  WG on a framework for regulation of online payment
           systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.9.  WG on a framework for regulation of DRM systems  . . . . . 23
     5.10. WG on a framework for guarantee systems  . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.11. WG on a framework for addressing the problem of spam . . . 23
     5.12. WG on a framework for addressing the problem of
           illegal content  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.13. WG on a framework for addressing the problem of
           indecent online content  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.14. Directives WG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     6.1.  Inappropriate Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     6.2.  Denial of Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     6.3.  Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     6.4.  Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   9.  Endorsements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   10. Request For Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26





























Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 3]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


1.  Introduction

   While local and national political challenges remain important,
   global challenges of humanity are now increasingly recognized as
   being at least equally important.

   These include:

   o  The need to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in an effective
      manner.

   o  Privacy protection in the context of information and communication
      technologies.

   o  Ensuring international fairness in regard to economic development,
      especially concerning poor communities and empowerment to overcome
      poverty.

   o  Shaping information societies according to human needs, see
      [WSIS-CS] and the Internet-related working group topics in
      Section 5.

   Specifically in relation to the last of these points, an outrageous
   violation of the principle of democratic public policy decision-
   making is taking place.  Principle 18 of the Delhi Declaration for a
   Just and Equitable Internet [Delhi] states: "Globally, there is a
   severe democratic deficit with regard to Internet governance.  It is
   urgently required to establish appropriate platforms and mechanisms
   for global governance of the Internet that are democratic and
   participative.  These must be anchored to the UN system, and include
   innovative methods for ongoing and deep participation of non-
   governmental actors in policy making processes.  Participating non-
   governmental actors must in turn be subject to appropriate
   transparency requirements, in particular regarding sources of funding
   as well as membership and decision-making processes."

   The present proposal provides a practical governance mechanism that
   is designed to fulfill these requirements of the Delhi Declaration,
   so that international and global governance challenges can be
   addressed in an effective and democratic manner.  The fundamental
   idea is to enhance the existing decision-making processes of
   democratic parliaments by means of developing relevant information
   and strategy documents.  The mechanism for developing these documents
   is inspired by how solutions to global technical challenges related
   to the Internet are developed in the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF, see http://ietf.org/), and by the practices and philosophy of
   the Free Software and Open Source movements.




Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 4]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   Analogous to the name "Internet Engineering Task Force", but
   reflecting the different area of subject matter (policy topics as
   opposed to topics of technical engineering related to the Internet),
   the name "International Wisdom Task Force", or "IWTF" for short, can
   be used by the group of people developing these information and
   strategy documents.

   Naturally, for any policy question there are different ways in which
   it can be framed.  Such different framings correspond to different
   perspectives on how the question should be addressed, and in many
   cases people's views on what is a reasonable answer to a question
   depend very much on this framing.  Furthermore, there are always
   difficult questions in regard to how the interests and unrealized
   human rights of those who are disadvantaged by the status quo should
   be balanced relative to the interests and economic and human rights
   of those who benefit from the status quo.  The International Wisdom
   Task Force will not attempt to be the decision-making forum for these
   questions.  Rather, the goal of the International Wisdom Task Force
   is to work out policy options and supporting documentation, in order
   to empower national parliaments to make good, well-informed decisions
   on what is a reasonable balance between the various legitimate
   interests.

   As demanded by the Delhi Declaration, there are some transparency/
   disclosure requirements for particpants in the International Wisdom
   Task Force who are representatives or employees or business partners
   of organizations with interests related to the topics under
   discussion, see Section 4.2.  It is a key goal to enable effective
   participation of all stakeholders, including interested citizens who
   are not subject matter experts.  At the same time, it is also a key
   goal to structure the deliberative processes so that at least a
   significant percentage of subject matter experts consider
   participation a reasonably good use of their time.

   One significant difference to the practices of the Internet
   Engineering Task Force is that in the International Wisdom Task
   Force, all substantive work is conducted electronically via the
   Internet.  This is important to ensure that all participants,
   including those who do not have the financial means to travel to in-
   person meetings, are able to participate fully effectively.

   Furthermore, "machine translation" technologies are used to support
   inter-language inter-comprehension, in order to facilitate the
   effective participation of people who do not have strong skills in a
   working-group's primary language, see Section 4.4.

   Like in the Internet Engineering Task Force and in the Free Software
   and Open Source movements, the key success factor for work in the



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 5]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   International Wisdom Task Force is to work by means of genuine
   deliberative processes rather than by means of some kind of power
   politics.

   Such deliberative processes can make use of techniques for strategy
   development and reasoning in complex systemic contexts by means of
   logic trees, as described e.g. in [Dettmer].

   In fact the use of such techniques, which allow to handle logical
   complexities effectively, is probably a precondition for being able
   to work productively when a wide variety of highly diverse viewpoints
   are expressed, which will in most cases happen naturally when the
   goal of including the full variety of stakeholders has been achieved,
   see [NB 2014].

   An important strength of these logic tree techniques is that they
   allow to deal with emotions such as fear and hope in a logical
   manner: They allow fears to be acknowledged and treated as a signal
   that there is a need to do careful systemic analysis and that there
   is a need for hope-inspiring solution proposals.  Although explicitly
   addressing fear and hope is not part of classical logics, an
   effective technique for doing that is probably necessary for creating
   constructive discourse processes in which all stakeholders are
   welcome to participate and where the needs, views and concerns
   expressed by every participant will be taken appropriately seriously.
   See also the UN Secretary-General's recent remarks on "the way to
   build societies founded on hope instead of fueled by fear", [Ban
   2013-08-28].

   Also critically important is that all working-groups which develop
   one or more documents need good chairpersons or coordinators who
   facilitate the deliberative and consensus and (where applicable)
   rough consensus processes.  In this context, "consensus" does not
   mean a requirement for full and absolute agreement of every
   participant in the working-group.  Rather, the definition of
   consensus which is applicable here is "absence of sustained
   opposition", where the only kind of opposition that matters is
   opposition which is sustained by means of valid and legitimate
   arguments.  When necessary, the criteria for accepting text can be
   further relaxed to "rough consensus".

   Similarly to how in the Free Software and Open Source movements, the
   power of the maintainers of software is balanced by everyone having
   the right to "fork" (which means to change the name of a copy of the
   software and then to start publicly maintaining that "forked" version
   of the software), in the International Wisdom Task Force it is
   allowed and reasonably easy to "fork" a working-group and the
   documents which it develops.



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 6]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   In this way, it is possible for different substantive viewpoints to
   lead to competing policy recommendation documents, each of which will
   be published in the same way by the International Wisdom Task Force,
   provided that a minimal threshold of interest among the so-called
   "sustaining members" of the International Wisdom Task Force is
   satisfied.  This rule about the minimal threshold of interest is
   designed to minimize the risk of damaging the reputation of the body
   of documents of the International Wisdom Task Force as a whole, which
   would happen in the absence of a mechanism to prevent the publication
   of documents of poor quality.

   Also, working-groups may develop recommendation documents that
   describe several possible policy choices and the respective
   advantages and disadvantages.

   In any case, it is ultimately the responsibility of parliaments to
   make the hard decisions that choose between policy options.

   What the International Wisdom Task Force can provide is:

   o  An international perspective, based on a broad logic-based
      deliberative process, to help ensure that those decisions will be
      well-informed.

   o  International coordination to the extent possible while
      maintaining the freedom of each national parliament to make
      substantive policy choices.

   While it may appear audacious to attempt a reform of international
   cooperation by means of a private initiative, this is justified by
   the urgent need for an effective process to develop solutions for the
   important global challenges.  International treaty-making processes
   are not only too slow, but they are also not likely to succeed in
   developing solutions that differ significantly from the status quo of
   current practice.

1.1.  Avoidance of Requirements Language

   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 participants in the start-up process Section 2 should not
   consider themselves bound by any of the text in this memo, but rather
   they should feel free to reconsider and revise all of these
   recommendations.





Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 7]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


2.  Start-up process

   The International Wisdom Task Force will be initiated by means of a
   relatively informal process in which the draft rules as described
   below are tried out and potentially modified before they are formally
   adopted.

   One possible start-up strategy is to start with just three
   substantive working groups on the topics "limiting greenhouse gas
   emissions", "privacy protection in the context of information and
   communication technologies", and "eradication of mass poverty",
   together with supporting working-groups developing and maintaining
   the needed standing documents as well as the directives.

   It will be necessary to work on movement-building in parallel to the
   work on establishing IWTF as an institutional framework.


3.  Draft Scope Statement for IWTF

   IWTF's scope of work shall be to empower national parliaments and
   governments to make good, well-informed decisions on information
   society issues, and on other global issues of any kind.


4.  Draft Working Directives for IWTF

   This section provides a draft set of rules that should be carefully
   considered and revised during the start-up process, with the goal of
   creating a good initial Working Directives document for IWTF.  During
   the start-up process, the draft working directives are not formally
   in force, but when they are not not followed, the reasons for acting
   differently should be carefully documented, and the discrepancy
   between the draft working directives and actual practice should be
   resolved as quickly as reasonably possible.  In this way, the
   start-up process provides an initial test of how the draft directives
   work in practice, and any unreasonably burdensome rules can be
   recognized and fixed quickly.

4.1.  Fundamental Values

   The fundamental values of the IWTF are the vision for shaping
   information societies for human needs [WSIS-CS], the 23 principles of
   the Delhi Declaration for a Just and Equitable Internet [Delhi], and
   that the human rights, as defined in the various international human
   rights treaties, shall be upheld and implemented in every way
   possible.




Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 8]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   Evidence-based arguments on how these objectives can be best achieved
   shall be given precedence over more speculative arguments.  IWTF has
   a number of Standing Documents providing guidance for the
   deliberative process; these shall be treated as incorporated by
   reference into these Directives.

   IWTF Working-Groups shall seek to provide, by means of the Request
   For Action 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.

4.2.  Disclosure requirements for IWTF participation

   As demanded by principle 18 of the Delhi Declaration for a Just and
   Equitable Internet [Delhi], there are some transparency/disclosure
   requirements for participants in the International Wisdom Task Force
   who are representatives or employees or business partners of
   organizations with interests related to the topics under discussion,
   specifically:

   o  The term "employees or business partners" shall be understood to
      include any kind relationship to a business entity which involves
      getting paid or funded in any way, or which involves any kind of
      economic dependency.

   o  In the case of for-profit organizations, the name of the business,
      the locations of its headquarters and its relevant areas of
      business activities and other interests shall be disclosed.  This
      can be done for example by means of a link to a webpage where this
      information is provided.





Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                  [Page 9]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   o  In the case of other non-governmental organizations, sources of
      funding as well as membership and decision-making processes shall
      be disclosed.  This can be done for example by means of a link to
      a webpage where this this information is provided.

   o  In the case of governmental organizations, the name of the country
      together with the name of the governmental organization is
      sufficient.

   o  Persons who claim to officially represent a governmental or other
      organization shall present an electronic copy of a letter which
      authorizes them accordingly.

   Organizational policies which prohibit disclosure of such
   transparency information do not excuse anyone from these disclosure
   obligations for IWTF participants.  If an organization has policies
   which are not compatible with these disclosure requirements, then
   these policies imply that the employees or business partners of such
   an organization cannot participate in IWTF.

   New participants in IWTF shall be prominently informed of these
   disclosure obligations and of the sanctions which shall be applied to
   anyone who knowingly or through willful neglect fails to satisfy
   their disclosure obligations.

   Anyone who participates in IWTF while knowingly or through willful
   neglect failing to satisfy their disclosure obligations shall be
   excluded from participation in IWTF for a period of five years.  This
   penalty shall be decided and executed by the IWTF Secretariat on the
   basis of clear and convincing information about such neglect being
   made available by anyone to the Secretariat, after the Secretariat
   has given the accused person an opportunity to try to disprove the
   accusation.  Legal recourse shall be available through he court
   system of the host country.

   In addition countries are encouraged to enact laws which criminalize
   the act of knowingly or through willful neglect giving false or
   incomplete disclosure information in the context of public policy
   discourse processes such as those of IWTF.

4.3.  WG Working Procedures

   IWTF 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 fulfill
   the IWTF disclosure requirements (see Section 4.2) and participate
   constructively, and that disagreements must be addressed by means of
   consensus-seeking deliberative processes.



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 10]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   Unless foreseen differently in the Terms of Reference of a Working
   Group, or the Working-Group decides otherwise, the IWTF Secretariat
   (see Section 4.9) shall use its discretion in setting up electronic
   communication infrastructure for the Working-Group (see Section 4.4
   below), 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 section on fundamental
   values in these directives (Section 4.1), 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 4.9.2) to decide an
   appropriate sanction which may take the form of barring specific
   persons from participation in IWTF 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.

   In regard to enforcing the principles of professionally respectful
   conduct, it is possible that policies which differ from the above may
   be included in the terms of reference of a WG, or may be decided by
   the WG.  Possible measures include for example the appointment of a
   team of "moderators" who could issue warnings about violations of the
   rules of conduct, and who might in cases where warnings prove
   ineffective have the authority to put specific participants "on
   moderation" in the sense that their contributions to the deliberative
   processes will be distributed to the other participants only after
   one of the moderators has reviewed the message for conformance to the
   rules of conduct and approved it.  Such measures can be used only if
   an appeals process, whereby decisions of the moderators are reviewed
   independently and potentially reversed, is available.

   Regardless of whether a WG's terms of reference assign any
   responsibility to the Secretariat in regard to enforcement of rules
   of conduct in general, bullying in any form (including mobbing, which
   is defined as an individual or a small group being subjected to
   bullying by a larger group) may be brought to the attention of the
   Secretariat.  Provided that the resources to evaluate claims of
   bullying are available, the Secretariat shall do so.  In doing so,
   the Secretariat shall be extremely careful to ensure that accusations
   of bullying can not be used as a means of bullying.  If claims of
   bullying are found to be verifiably true, the Secretariat shall
   immediately suspend the bully or bullies (in the sense of barring
   from participation in IWTF), with the duration of the suspension to
   be decided by the Committee by consensus or rough consensus or if
   necessary by majority voting.  The decision about the duration of a
   suspension on grounds of bullying shall be made within one month of
   the Secretariat's decision to suspend the bully or bullies.  If, in
   the case of mobbing, a clear ring-leader of the group of bullies has



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 11]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   been identified, the term of suspension of the ring-leader shall not
   be less than three years.

   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 IWTF 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 license with a note that a link to
   http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ suffices as attribution.  Textual
   components which are developed as a joint effort by IWTF participants
   using the consensus-seeking processes of IWTF working-groups are
   licensed under a simple Creative Commons Attribution license, while
   IWTF documents may also include textual components from external
   sources which are licensed under a more restrictive Creative Commons
   license.  (In that case, the compound document as a whole will also
   be under the more restrictive Creative Commons license.)

4.4.  "E-gathering" electronic communication infrastructure

   The Secretariat shall provide IWTF working-groups with electronic
   communication infrastructure which provides functionality similar to
   that of a an email mailing list, but with added functionality to make
   use of "machine translation" technologies to support inter-language
   inter-comprehension, in order to facilitate the effective
   participation of people who do not have strong skills in a working-
   group's primary language.

   This kind of an enhanced variants of an email mailing lists is
   referred to as an "e-gathering".

4.4.1.  Software freedom requirements

   With the possible exception of "machine translation" technologies
   sourced from outside providers, the software for the "e-gathering"
   electronic communication infrastructure shall be publicly available
   for download free of charge under a license which makes it Free and
   Open Source Software (FOSS).







Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 12]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


4.4.2.  Accessibility and compatibility requirements

   All electronic communication infrastructure used in IWTF shall
   fulfill all of the following requirements:

   o  It shall be fully accessible using a variety of computer operating
      systems.

   o  It shall be fully accessible using Free and Open Source Software
      (FOSS).

   o  It shall be fully accessible using assistive technologies for
      persons with disabilities.

4.5.  Request For Action (RFA) Publication Procedures

   The Secretariat shall process requests for publication of draft
   documents as Request For Action documents as follows:

   o  Unless the Working-Group made the decision to publish the draft as
      a Request For Action documents in the presence of a representative
      of the Secretariat, the Secretariat shall make reasonable
      inquiries to ensure that this decision has indeed been made by
      consensus or rough consensus and in accordance with the Terms of
      Reference of the Working-Group.

   o  The Secretariat shall verify that the Working-Group which made the
      request has Active status.  (All Working-Groups have Active status
      initially, this status can change to Inactive in case of
      Sustaining Member disendorsements, see Section 4.8.2.)

4.6.  Overall Rough Consensus Endorsement

   The Working-Group which has made the decision to publish a Request
   For Action document may instruct the Secretariat to issue a Consensus
   Call for Overall Rough Consensus Endorsement by IWTF.

   In this case the Secretariat shall communicate to all IWTF
   participants a request to review that Request For Action 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
   Action document.

   If no objections are received, or if the Working-Group otherwise
   decides not to revise the Request For Action document, it may ask for
   a determination whether there is Overall Rough Consensus of IWTF.



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 13]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   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 4.9.2
   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 Action document.  Furthermore, the Secretariat shall in
   this case issue a press release.

4.7.  WG Creation

   This section outlines the process for the formation of new IWTF
   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 IWTF'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.

4.7.1.  Initial Informal Discussion

   The IWTF Secretariat (see Section 4.9) shall make "e-gathering"
   electronic communication infrastructure (see Section 4.4) available
   for the purpose of informal discussion of ideas for new IWTF Working-
   Groups.

   The Secretariat shall use its discretion in reminding participants,
   when this may be necessary, of the values of IWTF 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 4.9.2) to decide an appropriate sanction which
   may take the form of barring specific persons from participation in
   IWTF 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.

4.7.2.  Terms of Reference Endorsement

   After at least one month has elapsed since an idea has been initially
   proposed for information discussion, a IWTF 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.



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 14]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


4.7.3.  Secretariat Actions

   The Secretariat shall verify that the Terms of Reference for the new
   Working-Group do not violate IWTF'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 the "e-gathering"
   communication infrastructure (see Section 4.4) and add the new
   Working-Group to the list of IWTF 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.

4.8.  WG Termination

   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.

4.8.1.  WG Dissolution by Rough Consensus

   A Working-Group has the power of making the decision to dissolve
   itself.

4.8.2.  WG Dissolution due to Disendorsement

   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 Action documents.  The status changes to Active
   again if the number of endorsing Sustaining Members again increases



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 15]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   to three or more.

   A Working-Group which has Inactive status for a continuous period of
   six months or more is dissolved.

4.8.3.  WG Dissolution due to Dysfunction

   As outlined in Section 4.9.9, 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.

4.9.  Sustaining Members and the Secretariat

   A Secretariat for the IWTF shall be established with seat in the
   Canton of Zurich, Switzerland.  A host country agreement shall be
   sought 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 IWTF Secretariat shall be funded, and decisions of budget and
   staffing of the IWTF Secretariat shall be made by a Committee of
   Sustaining Members, as described in Section 4.9.2 below.  In
   addition, Sustaining Members have a special role in regard to
   Working-Group formation (see Section 4.7.2) and dissolution (see
   Section 4.8.2).

4.9.1.  Categories of Sustaining Membership

   This section defines three categories of Sustaining Membership and
   corresponding eligibility criteria.  All Sustaining Members have
   equal rights in regard to the endorsement of Working-Groups (see
   Section 4.7.2).

   Note that while representatives of the particular interests of
   companies and industry organizations are welcome to participate in
   the discourses of the International Wisdom Task Force, they are not
   qualified to be recognized as Sustaining Members.

4.9.1.1.  Country Members

   Any country which is recognized by the UN as a country may become a
   Country Member of the IWTF.




Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 16]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


4.9.1.2.  International Organization Members

   Any membership organization of which at least three members are
   recognized by the UN as countries may become an International
   Organization Member of the IWTF.  Alternatively, any organ or other
   subentity of such an international organization may become an
   International Organization Member of the IWTF.

4.9.1.3.  Sustaining Civil Society Members

   Individuals and civil society organizations will upon request be
   recognized as Sustaining Civil Society Members if they fulfill all of
   the following three conditions:

   o  They provide proof of their identity.

   o  They provide a credible assurance of seeking to promote the public
      interest.

   o  They have participated constructively in the IWTF since its
      beginning or for the past two years.

   The Secretariat checks whether these conditions are satisfied.

4.9.2.  Committee of Sustaining Members

   Decisions of budget and staffing of the IWTF Secretariat shall be
   made by a Committee of Sustaining Members, as follows: From each of
   the three categories of Sustaining Members, up to five
   representatives may be delegated to the Committee, so that in total
   the committee consists of up to fifteen 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 consensus or 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.



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 17]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   The Committee shall review any proposed changes to the IWTF Working
   Directives before publication as a Request For Action 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 4.6.  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 Action 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 IWTF Working
   Directives (see Section 4.9.8 the difference being only that that
   Consensus Call involves only the Sustaining Members.

4.9.3.  Secretariat Funding

   The founder of IWTF is also creating a company "GoalTree Consulting"
   which has, as a principal objective, the aim of allowing him to
   create and build up IWTF.

   Ultimately, IWTF should however be funded by the country members.

   As soon as the country members have established a mechanism for
   funding the IWTF Secretariat, the special role of the company
   "GoalTree Consulting" will end.  This special role which ends at that
   point has two aspects: On one hand a role in funding the Secretariat,
   and on the other hand a role in making informative documents about
   logic tree reasoning available on the GoalTree.ch website, which IWTF
   links to (which constitutes a business benefit to the company
   "GoalTree Consulting").  At the time of the transition to funding by
   country members, the company "GoalTree Consulting" will make copies
   of all the linked documents available to IWTF under a Creative
   Commons license chosen by the Committee of Sustaining Members.

4.9.4.  Start-up phase

   During the start-up phase, founder of IWTF seeks to adequately fund
   the IWTF Secretariat through funds earned by the company "GoalTree
   Consulting".

   If the company "GoalTree Consulting" is insufficiently profitable to
   be able to meet these needs, the founder will seek to find a way for
   the shortfall to be covered through voluntary contributions or grants
   from foundations and/or other grant-giving institutions.  If a
   Secretariat and/or Committee of Sustaining Members have been
   established already, founder will request them to provide advice and
   otherwise assist in this task as they are able.



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 18]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


4.9.5.  Sustained operations phase

   In the sustained operations phase, the IWTF Secretariat is funded by
   the country members through a well-defined and sustainable mechanism.

   When the sustained operations phase have been reached, the range of
   IWTF's activities can be extended from providing primarily
   information for consideration during legislative processes of
   parliaments to also facilitating deeper engagement with policy making
   processes, as foreseen by principle 18 of the Delhi Declaration for a
   Just and Equitable Internet [Delhi].

4.9.6.  Transition from start-up phase to sustained operations phase

   In order to transition IWTF to the sustained operations phase, the
   country members of IWTF may at any time propose a contract to the
   founder of IWTF or his legal successor in this role, in which the
   country members promise to jointly take care of the reasonable needs
   of the IWTF Secretariat in a sustainable manner, and which shall not
   impose any obligation on the founder of IWTF or his legal successor
   besides licensing informative documents about logic tree reasoning
   under a Creative Commons license chosen by the Committee of
   Sustaining Members.  If these conditions are met, the founder of IWTF
   or his legal successor shall accept the offered contract and execute
   it promptly.

4.9.7.  Funding commitments

   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.

4.9.8.  Changes to the IWTF Working Directives

   If a IWTF 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 4.9.2), the Secretariat
   shall put them in force by publishing a Request For Action 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.

   As IWTF Standing Documents are treated as incorporated by reference



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 19]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   into these Directives, see Section 4.1, the same requirement for a
   Consensus Call among all Sustaining Members applies also any changes
   to the set of Standing Documents.

   Country Members or International Organization Members may propose to
   make IWTF part of the UN system.  Such a proposal can to be approved
   in the same way by rough consensus of all sustaining members of IWTF;
   the resulting decision will be contingent on the proposal also being
   accepted by the UN.

   If any of the principal organs or specialized agencies of the United
   Nations wishes to negotiate any kind of agreement with IWTF to the
   effect of anchoring IWTF in the UN system, the founder of IWTF shall
   have the authority to negotiate and enter such an agreement on behalf
   of IWTF.  If the founder of IWTF is not willing or not able to
   represent IWTF in such negotiations, the Committee shall appoint
   another representative who can be expected to competently represent
   IWTF with the goal of anchoring IWTF in the UN system while
   maintaining IWTF's integrity as per the Fundamental Values and
   further principles of IWTF as outlined in this document.

4.9.9.  Further Responsibilities of the Secretariat

   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 IWTF 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 IWTF
   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.

   Provided that the resources to do so are available, the Secretariat
   shall organize the appointment of an independent appeals team that



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 20]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   will be available to address disputes within Working-groups,
   including in particular disputes in regard to actions of moderators,
   see Section 4.3.

   The Secretariat also has the responsibility to ensure that IWTF
   participants are informed of their disclosure obligations as per
   Section 4.2, and the Secretariat must act to enforce the sanction if
   it is informed of evidence of a knowing or willful violation of the
   disclosure obligations.


5.  Draft Terms of Reference for Some Initial Working-Groups

   This section provides draft Terms of Reference statements for some
   possible IWTF Working-Groups (WGs).

5.1.  WG on limiting greenhouse gas emissions

   This WG shall develop strategy and information documents that empower
   national parliaments to make decisions which create appropriate
   global incentives to avoid greenhouse gas emissions.

5.2.  WG on privacy protection in the context of information and
      communication technologies.

   This WG shall develop strategy and information documents that empower
   national parliaments to make decisions which will, in synergy with
   the actions of other countries that make similar decisions, result in
   effective action to ensure privacy protection in the context of
   information and communication technologies.

5.3.  WG on the eradication of mass poverty

   The WSIS Declaration of Principles, "Building the Information Society
   - a Global Challenge in the New Millennium" [WSIS-2003], states that
   "under favorable conditions", ICTs can "be a powerful instrument,
   increasing productivity, generating economic growth, job creation and
   employability and improving the quality of life of all."  That is
   especially important in the context of economic development of poor
   communities, where the goal is empowerment to overcome poverty.

   This WG shall develop strategy and information documents addressing
   the following questions:

   o  What roles can the Internet play in anti-poverty strategies?

   o  What are the relevant "favorable conditions" under which Internet-
      based technologies, services and/or community tools provide



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 21]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


      significant empowerment to overcome poverty?

   o  What further measures are needed to achieve the objective to
      completely eradicate mass poverty?

5.4.  WG on standing documents on the deliberative process

   This WG shall maintain the standing documents which explain the
   deliberative processes used in IWTF, including in particular logic
   trees and consensus and rough consensus processes.

   During the start-up phase of IWTF as defined in Section 4.9.3 on
   funding, these standing documents shall heavily reference and link to
   informative documents about logic trees published on GoalTree.ch;
   this requirement ends when the start-up phase of IWTF ends.

5.5.  WG on framework for democratic governance of global matters

   This WG shall maintain an explanatory document about how, together
   with what national parliaments can do, IWTF provides a framework for
   democratic governance of global matters.

5.6.  WG on Government Activities to Further Sustainable Digital Culture

   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 Action
   documents, appropriate recommendations regarding government
   activities aimed at the furtherance of culture.

   Rationale: As outlined in the Background Paper for that workshop, see
   [NB 2012], this is important in regard to the human rights of artists
   and the general public.

5.7.  WG on a framework for regulation of online identity systems

   Online identity systems are expected to become increasingly
   important, for example as a foundation for online payment systems
   (see below).  There may be a need for regulation.  This WG will
   develop a framework document on which national legislatures and
   regulatory agencies can draw in order to minimize incompatibilities
   between regulation in various countries.

5.8.  WG on a framework for regulation of online payment systems

   Online payment systems are expected to become increasingly important.
   There may be a need for regulation.  This WG will develop a framework
   document on which national legislatures and regulatory agencies can



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 22]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   draw in order to minimize incompatibilities between regulation in
   various countries.

5.9.  WG on a framework for regulation of DRM systems

   If DRM (Digital Rights Management / Digital Restrictions Management)
   systems become more widely used, there may be a need for regulation
   in order to prohibit the use of such systems in ways that have
   negative social effects.  This WG will develop a framework document
   on which national legislatures and regulatory agencies can draw in
   order to minimize incompatibilities between regulation in various
   countries.

5.10.  WG on a framework for guarantee systems

   Guarantee systems could provide a viable basis for addressing
   problems like spam, illegal online content and indecent online
   content (see below).  There may be a need for regulation.  This WG
   will develop a framework document which can help inform technical
   standardization work about various policy concerns, and on which
   national legislatures and regulatory agencies can draw in order to
   minimize incompatibilities between regulation in various countries.

5.11.  WG on a framework for addressing the problem of spam

   This WG will develop a framework document which can help inform
   technical standardization work about various policy concerns in
   relation to addressing the problem of spam on the basis of a
   guarantee system, and which also serves to inform governmental
   stakeholders who are concerned about the problem of spam.

5.12.  WG on a framework for addressing the problem of illegal content

   This WG will develop a framework document which can help inform
   technical standardization work about various policy concerns in
   relation to addressing the problem of illegal content on the basis of
   a guarantee system together with an appropriate legal system, and on
   which national legislatures and regulatory agencies can draw in order
   to minimize incompatibilities between regulation in various
   countries.

5.13.  WG on a framework for addressing the problem of indecent online
       content

   This WG will develop a framework document which can help inform
   technical standardization work about various policy concerns in
   relation to addressing the problem of indecent online content on the
   basis of a guarantee system, and which also serves to inform



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 23]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   governmental stakeholders who are concerned about the problem of
   indecent online content.

5.14.  Directives WG

   This WG shall continually observe the progress of the work of IWTF,
   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 Action 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 IWTF 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 IWTF.)

   Rationale: Every organization needs to observe its own performance,
   and to take corrective action when necessary.


6.  Security Considerations

   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 IWTF work with
   regard to human rights needs to be safeguarded.

6.1.  Inappropriate Usage

   Clearly IWTF needs rules governing the interaction between
   participants.  In the absence of appropriate rules, participation in
   IWTF 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.

6.2.  Denial of Service

   It is particularly important to avoid vulnerability of IWTF 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



Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 24]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


   for beneficiaries of the status quo (who may fear a potential loss of
   power) to disrupt discussions that could against their specific
   particular interests.

6.3.  Bullying

   It is especially important to ensure that IWTF participants are not
   regularly subjected to bullying by those who (for reasons of specific
   particular interests) might wish to prevent the effective
   participation of their political opponents or competitors.

6.4.  Human Rights

   The rules of IWTF 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.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.


8.  Acknowledgements

   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.


9.  Endorsements

   Endorsements will be solicited at a later stage.


10.  Request For Comments

   Comments and other feedback of any kind regarding this Internet-Draft
   are requested in the form of personal communications to the author.





Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 25]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


11.  Informative References

   [Ban 2013-08-28]
              Ban Ki-moon, "Secretary-General's Freedom Lecture at
              Leiden University", 2013,
              <http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=7046>.

   [Culture]  Bollow, N., "IGF Workshop: Standards for Sustainable
              Digital Culture", 2012,
              <http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/node/21>.

   [Delhi]    Just Net Coalition, "Delhi Declaration for a Just and
              Equitable Internet", 2014,
              <http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration>.

   [Dettmer]  Dettmer, H W., "The Logical Thinking Process", ISBN 978-0-
              87389-723-5, 2008.

   [IGC]      Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, "Mailing list",
              <http://igcaucus.org/membership>.

   [NB 2012]  Bollow, N., "Standards for Sustainable Digital Culture
              (Background Paper)", 2012,
              <http://bollow.ch/papers/SustainableDigitalCulture.pdf>.

   [NB 2014]  Bollow, N., "Logic trees for inclusive discourse", 2014,
              <http://bollow.ch/papers/LT4Inclusion.pdf>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              July 2003.

   [WSIS-2003]
              UN World Summit on the Information Society, "Declaration
              of Principles. Building the Information Society: a global
              challenge in the new Millennium.", 2003,
              <http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html>.

   [WSIS-CS]  Civil Society, "Declaration to the World Summit on the
              Information Society", 2003, <http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/
              geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf>.







Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 26]





Internet-Draft              Wisdom Task Force              November 2014


Author's Address

   Norbert Bollow
   GoalTree Consulting
   Weidlistrasse 18
   CH-8624 Gruet,
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 44 972 20 59
   Email: nb@bollow.ch
   URI:   http://GoalTree.ch/








































Bollow                    Expires May 17, 2015                 [Page 27]

Home

RFA 1

Contact