Re: Proposal: Internet Public Policy Module

[David Ascher]

On 2012-12-19, at 4:15 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm proposing we create an Internet Public Policy Module, as described below. I'm also proposing the Module Owner be Harvey Anderson. Harvey's been leading the global side of our public policy issues for a while now. Having a Module notes this, and also makes it easier to know where to go for policy topics.
>
> For now, I've proposed this newsgroup as the discussion point, but I'm not sure that's right. Perhaps a new discussion forum would be better.

My belief is that this group (which I think is an excellent idea) will draw in passionate and talented people who are deeply committed to a better internet, but not _that_ interested in Mozilla's internal policy discussions.

Thinking about the discussion that happened in the past on issues from ITU to COPPA, I doubt the membership of this group is the right "default" audience. I believe having to "join" an internet policy discussion would make it easier for people to seek out background information and start with a learning stance.

If Harvey in particular agrees, we should probably create a bespoke place of discussion (both discussion forum & bugzilla component).

I also wonder whether influencing public policy is something that, possibly controversially, sometimes will need a non-public space to discuss possible actions. In a somewhat paradoxical way, making it possible for the Internet Public Policy Module to have private conversations may make it easier for Harvey et peers to effectively collect the input of a broader set of informed contributors. Whether or not there's a secondary semi-private group, I'm sure Harvey will encourage people who have ideas that shouldn't be discussed in public yet to reach out to him.

--david

[afo...@mozilla.com]

On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:47:19 PM UTC-8, David Ascher wrote:
> > For now, I've proposed this newsgroup as the discussion point, but I'm not sure that's right. Perhaps a new discussion forum would be better.
>
> My belief is that this group (which I think is an excellent idea) will draw in passionate and talented people who are deeply committed to a better internet, but not _that_ interested in Mozilla's internal policy discussions.

re: the use of a public newsgroup, like Governance, and whether it will attract the right kind of participants and discussion for our future work on open net policy issues:

My experience over the last year with privacy-related posts to Governance is that the quantity and quality of comments is completely dependent on who happens to be reading Governance on any given day.

We may have a really important post on a change in our data practices that may be controversial with a segment of the community, but since only a handful of people see a post to Governance, we end up with little to no deep discussion on ramifications, etc. So, then saying we checked off that box, solicited community input and are "good to move forward" could still pose risks to us and our decision-making process.

Bottom line...I now make a concerted effort to post to Governance and then also email everyone I can think of who should know about the post and encourage them to weigh in. Likewise, some kind of direct outreach approach needs to compliment posts to policy-related newsgroups.

[hand...@mozilla.com]

On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:47:19 PM UTC-8, David Ascher wrote:

Thanks for kicking this off Mitchell. Should the proposal be adopted, I hope to do it justice. The part I'm excited about the most is developing a global cabal of folks who have domain and regional expertise who can help Mozilla calibrate when to step in, how deep to go, and when to let it go. All of this filtered against our mission and providing a differential input. To do this I envision both Mozilla voices who just care and some set of domain experts that may participate at various times depending on the issue. For example, folks deep in copyright often don't have a sufficient background in antitrust. Similarly, antitrust expertise doesn't necessarily mean you're knowledgeable about open Internet issues. Another characteristic at work here is that the issues we're addressing don't live in a vacuum, and rarely are they totally new. There's history behind them, players who've been working for years to make policy changes, and a host of commercial, consumer and state interests that may be driving current initiatives. While we may know the heading and direction, those domain experts usually know the background and can help us navigate the path.

Regarding the governance posts in general, I concur with David. It's hit or miss with governance, but we use it because its the best we have for now.

During the SOPA and Internet blackout campaign, we developed an email list where we discussed current events, next steps, issues, and it was pretty effective. Anyone could join the list but everyone knew who was on the list. I wonder if we could we use something like that as a tool in addition to other methods like a wiki to hold static information, and a governance forum to manage general communications and capture new issues as well. Also interested in other ideas and tools that could work.

/hja

[hand...@mozilla.com]

On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:47:19 PM UTC-8, David Ascher wrote:

[Majken Connor]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:21 PM, <afo...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:47:19 PM UTC-8, David Ascher wrote:

> > > For now, I've proposed this newsgroup as the discussion point, but I'm
> not sure that's right. Perhaps a new discussion forum would be better.
> >
> > My belief is that this group (which I think is an excellent idea) will
> draw in passionate and talented people who are deeply committed to a better
> internet, but not _that_ interested in Mozilla's internal policy
> discussions.
>

> re: the use of a public newsgroup, like Governance, and whether it will
> attract the right kind of participants and discussion for our future work
> on open net policy issues:
>
> My experience over the last year with privacy-related posts to Governance
> is that the quantity and quality of comments is completely dependent on who
> happens to be reading Governance on any given day.
>
> We may have a really important post on a change in our data practices that
> may be controversial with a segment of the community, but since only a
> handful of people see a post to Governance, we end up with little to no
> deep discussion on ramifications, etc. So, then saying we checked off that
> box, solicited community input and are "good to move forward" could still
> pose risks to us and our decision-making process.
>
> Bottom line...I now make a concerted effort to post to Governance and then
> also email everyone I can think of who should know about the post and
> encourage them to weigh in. Likewise, some kind of direct outreach approach
> needs to compliment posts to policy-related newsgroups.

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

We might start a thread about the governance list/group itself. I think it
is not well known that this list exists and then it's not super obvious
what this list is for.

[tim.r...@gmail.com]

> I also wonder whether influencing public policy is something that, possibly controversially, sometimes will need a non-public space to discuss possible actions. In a somewhat paradoxical way, making it possible for the Internet Public Policy Module to have private conversations may make it easier for Harvey et peers to effectively collect the input of a broader set of informed contributors. Whether or not there's a secondary semi-private group, I'm sure Harvey will encourage people who have ideas that shouldn't be discussed in public yet to reach out to him.
>

Adding another voice in favor of creating a bespoke place for this discussion.

And, just a thought on the private/public question: drawing from our experience from the recent ITU push, I think it'll be inevitable that there will be need for non-public spaces to discuss actions. Though these will be campaign-specific groups and will involve changing sets of members of people within and beyond the Mozilla community (even over the span of a given campaign).

So, my thought is that a permanent secondary semi-private group isn't immediately necessary (and might put an odd spin on the discussion in the public forum), and we'd be able to quickly spin them up if necessary in any case.

[tim.r...@gmail.com]

> I also wonder whether influencing public policy is something that, possibly controversially, sometimes will need a non-public space to discuss possible actions. In a somewhat paradoxical way, making it possible for the Internet Public Policy Module to have private conversations may make it easier for Harvey et peers to effectively collect the input of a broader set of informed contributors. Whether or not there's a secondary semi-private group, I'm sure Harvey will encourage people who have ideas that shouldn't be discussed in public yet to reach out to him.
>

[Gloria Meneses]

Hi
It's marvelous read this thread! And as Majken mentioned, we discussed this
in our past council work week (we had very productive weekend). This issue
has become important not just in a technical way but also in politics,
business and human development in general, that's why every day we have
more and more reps involved on it.

The ITU meeting ended, but not the intentions to control it . SOPA, ACTA
and PIPA are examples of how governments will trying to control the
Internet , this agreements are just a modification of the past one in order
to control Internet. Google, Microsoft, UN, ISOC, ICANN and EU have been
discussing about this, but Mozilla is probably the "Good Guy" in this
group, a big and important support for Users interests and Internet health.

I agree with David when he says:

> My belief is that this group (which I think is an excellent idea) will
> draw in passionate and talented people who are deeply committed to a better

> Internet, but not _that_ interested in Mozilla's internal policy
> discussions.


There is a difference between Mozilla's policy and this new module. The
Internet discussion covers several fields and is not easy to distinguish
between a field and another, there aren't a border to remark when a field
ends and other begins. Internet defense is independent of Mozilla issues
and involves other stakeholders and their own interests.

Working with people who are not involved in Mozilla's internal policy has
some advantages:

1. They can make proposals independent of Mozilla's policies <- This is
obvious :)
2. Mozilla's Policy group do not have to pay attention (at least not
deeply) about Internet policy issues
3. They are just engaged on this topic
4. This group could be comprised (or supported) by external
organizations and/or community members who are interested on this topics
(As Harvey mentioned)
5. Is a clear communication channel between Mozilla and users interest.
A lot of people in Mozilla community are paying attention on this, but they
have not a clear communication channel with Mozilla, they have not idea if
Mozilla could help them

I think there must exist a bespoke place for this discussions and it must
be public (at least for now) in order to engage (or invite) people and
organizations who have been part of this discussion and have been working
on it.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:38 PM, <tim.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > I also wonder whether influencing public policy is something that,
> possibly controversially, sometimes will need a non-public space to discuss
> possible actions. In a somewhat paradoxical way, making it possible for
> the Internet Public Policy Module to have private conversations may make it
> easier for Harvey et peers to effectively collect the input of a broader
> set of informed contributors. Whether or not there's a secondary
> semi-private group, I'm sure Harvey will encourage people who have ideas
> that shouldn't be discussed in public yet to reach out to him.
> >
>

> Adding another voice in favor of creating a bespoke place for this
> discussion.
>
> And, just a thought on the private/public question: drawing from our
> experience from the recent ITU push, I think it'll be inevitable that there
> will be need for non-public spaces to discuss actions. Though these will be
> campaign-specific groups and will involve changing sets of members of
> people within and beyond the Mozilla community (even over the span of a
> given campaign).
>
> So, my thought is that a permanent secondary semi-private group isn't
> immediately necessary (and might put an odd spin on the discussion in the
> public forum), and we'd be able to quickly spin them up if necessary in any
> case.

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

--
Gloria Patricia Meneses
Mozilla Reps Council Member
__________________________
Linux user No *542404*
www.mozilla-hispano.org
www.mozillacolombia.org
wiki.mozilla.org/User:Izel
reps.mozilla.org/u/Izel/

[Mitchell Baker]

OK, we'll create a Public Policy Module as specified in the prior
message, *except* that we'll create a dedicated place for discussions
other than this list.

Harvey has told me he'd like to start with Alex Fowler as a peer.

Thank you Harvey and Alex for taking this on.

mitchell

[Gervase Markham]

On 09/01/13 19:11, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> OK, we'll create a Public Policy Module as specified in the prior
> message, *except* that we'll create a dedicated place for discussions
> other than this list.

There is an existing, currently low-traffic, list called
"mozilla.community.digital-freedom", which was set up around the time of
the SOPA/PIPA fuss. Perhaps that would be useful in this role?

Gerv

[Majken Connor]

Another discussion just came up on Reps list that would be relevant here (
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 for reference )

Did we decide to use that list? Would like to direct the discussion to the
right place!

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 09/01/13 19:11, Mitchell Baker wrote:

> > OK, we'll create a Public Policy Module as specified in the prior
> > message, *except* that we'll create a dedicated place for discussions
> > other than this list.
>

> There is an existing, currently low-traffic, list called
> "mozilla.community.digital-freedom", which was set up around the time of
> the SOPA/PIPA fuss. Perhaps that would be useful in this role?
>
> Gerv
>

[Gervase Markham]

On 18/04/13 06:32, Majken Connor wrote:
> Another discussion just came up on Reps list that would be relevant here (
> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 for reference )
>
> Did we decide to use that list? Would like to direct the discussion to the
> right place!

There is now a Netpolicy mailing list, details here:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Netpolicy

It's a little less public than our other lists due to the sensitive
nature of discussions surrounding what position Mozilla should take on
public policy issues, but it's open to any Mozillian or invited guest.

Gerv