Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] Disclosure of conflicts of interest

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:12:53 +0200

At 06:59 21/09/2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>Hi Brian,
>At 12:42 20-09-2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>Could you define "conflict of interest" please? It is a phrase with
>>a very wide range of interpretations.
>
>I agree that the phrase has a very wide range of interpretations.  I 
>posted a message at 
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00309.html 
>I wasn't sure what information to provide.  I left out some 
>information as I thought that it is obvious from the message 
>itself.  The better path, in my opinion, is to leave the matter to 
>individual appreciation.

Seun,

Definitely every one of us is a stakeholder (even if many 
political/practical reasons oppose our full mutual recognition). This 
means that we all have some stakes of various kinds in the stability, 
reliability, and availability of the internet, for some directly 
(being paid for our acts/posts), and for most of us indirectly 
through various business/relational interests or rewards and/or revenues.

The level and nature of these returns are of no real interest as they 
may vary with the considered terms (traveling is a short-term 
interest, protecting a job is a middle-term interest, architecturing 
the network is a long-term interest that may be worth oblivion or billions).

The real point for everyone is to assess if each other individual is 
clever or free-minded enough to understand his/her own, his/her 
employer's or country's best interests in a complex political, 
economic, technical, etc. system and what is their nature (short-, 
middle-, or long-term, professional, financial, political, fame, 
military, etc.). In meshed interests networking, developments do not 
obey cybernetics or logic but rather agorics (i.e. not 
mono/dialectics but polylectics inferences and influences).

In such a situation, the "average", the probable "emergence", and the 
"attraction" is what you feel (or simulate) as being the best leading 
common interest. The difficulty is that the best leading common 
interest depends on the terms, communities, market variations, etc. 
and ultimately on the common interaction of them (networking). 
Therefore, you do not think in terms of what people say and do, of 
who is paying them, etc. but rather by metaduction, i.e. what should 
be their best metainterests and how long will they take to understand it.

This means that if someone does not understand his/her or others best 
interests he/she is creating a dumbness black-hole where any clever 
move and smart proposition will be absorbed and blocked or buried.

Currently, while the "status quo" strategic black hole seems to 
dissolve, the most common black hole results from intellectual 
hysteresis: a determined attitude to act, think, and talk as if the 
situation was far from any singularity. This attitude might be a 
wider black hole.

A black hole is a definitive conflict of intelligence with the whole 
community's common set of interests.

- It may dissolve with time as the status quo seems to be doing, 
after the RFC 6852 identification of the global communities and the 
results of their divergences of interests (normative fragmentation 
leading to competitive innovation).
- It may also enter a "self-organized criticality" phase 
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality) 
that can certainly be exacerbated by the kind of conflicts of 
interest you discuss. Those who sponsor them certainly play 
sorcerers' apprentices.

jfc