Lobbying System is born - It needs Rules and Transparency

Elsewhere there is a huge thread full of outrage at a private meeting between an Anshe/Prok dominated lobby group, and Philip, the LL CEO. A leak of the proceedings shows Anshe as spokesman making remarks about the majority of players to which many have taken offense.

Posters on behalf of the Anshe/Prok group have made the mistake of supporting the impression that their group saw itself as having a special relationship with LL, and as being a suitable vehicle for wide support, almost verging on being the birth of a new organisation to become the channel for resident representation in dealing with LL.

Hence the "not in my name" outrage.

There follows a repost of a modified version of my contribution. I am posting it on its own, because it suggests the outrage is inapropriate, and propsose that what we have here is the birth of a new "lobby system" and that we need to establish rules to provide fairness and transparency in its operation.

The Anshe/Prok group, and its meeting, is of trivial importance except in heralding the availability of this lobbying procedure, and alerting us to the need to regularise and control it.

Here then is my posting. Its not that well constructed bit I don't have time to rewrite it. My hope is to stimulate a discussion about what the lobbying rules or Code of Practice should be :

_________________________________________________________________________

You are all getting worked up over the wrong thing.
This is clearly just a special interest lobby group, the creature of Anshe and Prok.
They had a private meeting with Phillip.

How it happened and what was said, and who was invited and how is not important.

What is important is that Phillip has endorsed the existence of special interest Lobby Groups, and pledged to hold meetings with them

The only matter for concern is that he has clearly not thought through the full implications, skating around the question of whether they should be publically open, whether the discussions should be public etc etc. Uncertain what rules to lay down.

Personally I think he may become inundated with newly formed groups, and requests for his time, but on his own head be it.

The important thing is to calm this outcry about "not in my name" by making it absolutely clear that this particular group has NO preferential position, no license to represent anyone but themselves, and never will have.

In a way it is good that it is lead by two of the probably least acceptable residents for such "representational" purpose, one of whom could certainly not be described as a "resident in good standing" because of his continual appalling abuse of other residents which resulted in his forum ban. The other is simply too rich to represent the rest of us - her interests differ from ours.

As special interest lobbying, I see nothing wrong with what they did. Indeed I find I share quite a view of their concerns, not that it matters.

What we need now is simply this :

We need urgent clarification of the rules for this new lobbying activity - a growth industry if I ever saw one.

I suggest there should be no more such meetings until we have at least some clarification of such things as:

1 What criteria will the award of a meeting (eg with Phillip) be based upon ? Formal existence as a group ? Number of members ? Wealth ? Land ownership ? Sales ? Longevity ?
2 How is a meeting request to be submitted ?
3 Does there need to be a pre-submitted written agenda ?
4 Which meetings should be publically announced, and how ?
5 Who may attend ?
6 Which meetings should be post-notified worldwide, and with what info on proceedings
7 If any new info is obtained, wjether, how and where will it be made publically available ?
8 etc

I am not suggesting that every detaill must be decided instantly. But the outcry we see here makes it clear that there is a huge groundswell of opinion against secret private meetings.

We need a lobbying code of practice which LL will adhere to, and we must too. I have started drafting a proposal which I will share with anyone interested.

At the minimum I see
a) Every lobby group to be an SL group, and to be registered in a special public list
b) All membership lists public, ditto a binding statement of objectives and interests, outside which discussions may not wander.
c) Two categories of groups, public-open and private-invite.
d) Official post-notification of all meetings. Worldwide pre-notification for the public-open ones, using at least the event system
e) Public lobby groups run a forum, in which full transcripts of all meetings and procedings are published.

I'm not sure what the reporting requirements should be for the private ones. Is it enough just to know the meetings happened ?

Its my guess that if we can get the public lobby groups to work well, the experience gained, and the rules formulated, might be helpful in eventually creating the holy grail. A (or a heirachy of) representative assemblies. Personally I think its a bit early for that, but we and the Lindens need to start feeling our way forward. A well-functioning, formally defined lobbying system might be a good way to put our mutual feet in the water.

They could learn and grow structures to talk to us, we could do the same for them.

Tell me - am I exaggerating the importance of this ?

It seems to me that fairness and transparency in dealings between LL and groups of concerned residents is critically important. The outrage in the main thread suggests many, many of you think the same.

My guess is that this is a critical moment if SL is to grow into a world. What we insist on now, we will gain forever. What we let slip we may never recover. These lobbying activities are the prototypes which will shape the form of future representational assemblies, and should therefore be taken very seriously.

Have I lost my trolley ?

Linden Labs apparently cannot see far enough ahead of their nose to understand that meetings such as the one currently in the spotlight erode their overall credibility on every conceivable level.

What *should* have happened was for Linden Labs to tell these folks, 'Hey, we think it is great that you want to influence and change things. But we're not taking sides or giving special support to you or anyone else. If you want to see change, then be the change and if your cause is true, others will join you.'

To even HINT that Linden Labs is interested in propping up ANY subset of their customer base as in ANY way more important than another is stupidity to an almost mind-boggling level.

To in any way allow that to gain footing, let alone prosper, is lethal to them in ways they obviously do not see.

IF Linden Labs is interested in turning their product over to residents in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, that process should initiate with them and be wholly managed and dictated by them.

This is a big, puffy, puss-filled black eye any way you look at it. The only question remaining is:

WILL THEY EVER FREAKING LEARN?

I'm interested in seeing how this pans out, specifically what the criteria are to get a meeting.

Not that I particularly want a meeting right now, but it would be nice to know that Phil himself will sit down with a group of concerned citizens. That's about as direct a voice in government as one can get.

-Ghoti

Nah. I don't see it that way. LL's willingness to sit down and listen to a group of residents that felt compelled to organize a message is a good thing. In their replies in the transcript I saw nothing but polite respect and diplomacy. This is only a bad thing if groups like this start being taken seriously as anything other than a way for people to band together and tell LL what's on their minds. If this kind of lobbying ever gets traction as anything more than a feel good exercise we could be in for the dawn of the SL political age. I think (hope) LL is smart enough to not add fuel to potential fires. Personally, as far as this particular group goes all I needed to know is that Prok is a founding member. He wouldn't know a consensus if it came along and agreed with him.

Chip, seriously, take a few minutes to actually contemplate LL history and this meeting in the context thereof.

Let's feed the data into the diplomacy machine... GOM public relations nightmare happens... approached by potentially hostile mob that would like to air grievances... group chaired by largest tier holder and loudest demagogue... *calculating* *ding* the answer is "Agree to listen. Nod and smile. Make no sudden moves."

Ya see, that's the problem... diplomacy is sugar-coating over the poisoned apple. You don't realise you're dead until you're dead. Just ask Snow. (chuckle)

But seriously -- given LL's reactionary history, this bodes ill. The reality that LL even attempted to look interested in such an overt political action group is frightening. They really need to come out loud and strong... and fast. The 2% rule is in effect.

I have to say again, this particular group and its meeting are not individually significant or intrinsically bad. That such meetings are possible is surely good in principle, but only if they take place within a framework of fairness, transparency, and equal access.

The question is, how can such a framework be set up, and what should be the rules?

This is how the two opposing viewpoints here can be reconciled. If such meetings are preferential, secret, unfair, they are bad. If they are fair, open, transparent, they are good.
Surely we should all stop beating our breasts and start working out how can suggest ways to make them the latter.

Wouldn't that mean Editorial Hare's "leak" would have to be a plant ? You comfortable with that as a hypothesis, Chip ?

Mind you, I did have it firmly in my mind that Editorial Hare was a Prok alt. I can't remember what my evidence was.........

No it wouldn't Once you've appeased the members of the group the mission is complete. In fact, it's better served by it ending there and all the attendees walking away with a warm fuzzy feeling.

Ok - you reckon the most significant of those upset about GOM were in the group. If thats true, Chip, then I have to agree your logic makes sense.

The test will be whether Philip really will start welcoming an extension of lobbying activity, and start meeting less influential groupings, as he has claimed.
I think we should take him at his word, propose a lobbying Code, and start reporting and monitoring the resulting meetings.

However, I don't have the time to organise it myself, so what right have I to say it should be done? Way of the world eh ?

No, I don't think that... I think you're trying to read too much in to it. I'm simply saying in a week with a bit of a public reltions debacle, it stands to reason that LL would be looking to go the extra mile and be receptive to the community in a slightly above and beyond the call way (in whatever way the community approaches them). I don't really see it as anything more than that, no matter the intentions (and obvious agendas) of the group founders.

Ok - I asked the question - am I going over the top in this ?
I've got the message. However hard I try, no-one will engage with me on how face-to face lobbying is now here - and on whether it needs controlling, and how to do it.

Almost everbody just wants to discuss the details of the Prok/Anshe group, it personalities, its agenda.

But can anyone tell me, why are the demands of this one special interest group, so dubiously lead, of such significance that everyone keeps discussing them so much ?

Surely they are trivial in themselves ?
Surely the only thing that matters is that they got Philip Linden to sit in a Linden conference room with them for 2 hours and involve himself in interactive discourse ?

He claims he is ready, even eager, to repeat this with other lobby groups.

This claim IS significant, and it is vital we verify its sincerity, discuss a code of practice in relation to establishing equal access, and guidelines on notification and reporting.

Oh hell, why bother - I give up.......

Lets all just keep our eyes down and scrutinise the bark of the trees . Who wants to see the wood anyway........

I just have to accept that no-one shares my take on what elements of this are significant, and which trivial. Thats enough for tonight, maybe for good on this topic.........

You've lost me Cienna. You post in outrage that this Prok/Anshe/Philip meeting took place. Then you praise the openness of access we all have to LL.
And state we have no need to exercise any control over future conduct of such meetings, or to ask for notification of them, or information on what was said.

To me these viewpoints seem contradictory. Since I don't recognise you as a troll, Cienna, I would welcome some clarification.

I'm resistant to any sort of attempts to formalize this process because once that happens the genie is out of the bottom and we'll have a fullblown political system. Does anyone really want that? Well it seems the founders of this group do... I just don't feel that LL is going to cave to it and the benefits of the community face time probably do more to head it off at the pass than to embrace it. It's like that crazy guy you have to pass on the sidewalk. Nod. Smile. Don't make eye contact!

You're lost because you're still busy assuming that we as players have some right to demand more than access as a result of our subscription. I refer you to the EULA and the ToS and remind you that the only thing Linden Labs owes us is what those two documents state they do.

I am very close to being seduced by your laid-back laisses-faire attitude, Chip, but I can't quite make it. Because I cannot believe Philip would spend that amount of time on a meeting, and openly commit to many more, if he had no intention of actually listening, and being willing to be influenced or persuaded.

I belive this is significant precisely because I think this is indeed the first womb-kicks of a nascent political system. Put our heads in the sand, and before we know it, we will have monthly Prok/Anshe/Philip meetings to discuss developments and prospects. And indeed we may very quickly not know it.

Then this meeting, and a few others with different slants to them could easily become regular, institutionalised and begin to evolve towards integration in a growing government of which the rest of us know zilch. Would we have known about this if Editorial Hare hadn't spilled the beans ?

Maybe, Chip, this has already been going on for a long time, and others know all about it. Maybe Prok and Anshe had hitherto been kept on the outside, and this was their move to gain entry to an already fully-functioning inner circle, a move which accidentally got exposed to public gaze ?

But I prefer not to believe this. I prefer to believe that such consultative bodies have yet to grow, and that it is not too late to ensure they grow under the light of day, and not in the shadowy world of silence and intrigue.

I believe this meeting is significant in that it heralds the start of precisely the sort of political process you fear, Chip. I believe it is inevitable and unstoppable. That this is the significant moment when we can impact which way it develops. I believe Philip is genuinely willing to engage in a wider and open dialog, subject to the difficulties of negotiating with too many people at once. I believe that we could establish with him just and equitable rules on how this new face-to-face lobbying activity should be best handled, and that this would set the tone for the more significant developments to follow.

So, believing all these things, how can I go along with you in trusting that these meetings are all a meaningless sham, a sop to the naive, and that we needn't bother our little heads about them because they won't influence any significant outcome in the slightest ?

I wish I could. No I don't. This way is much more fun.

I'm no further forward on decoding your state of mind on these issues, Cienna, I'm afraid. Are you saying that we are all so utterly impotent before the power of Linden Labs that all discussion/resistance is futile ? True at rock-bottom of course, but ameliorated a little by their apparent desire to have customers.
I am under absolutely no illusion that we can force LL to anything. But we can certainly make constructive suggestions for their consideration with some hope that if the suggestions are good enough they may not be entirely ignored.

Suggest away -- the have an email address for that.

We don't need a plague of regulations and policies.

Ellie, I think what you are trying to achieve is great.

Just keep in mind that not everybody who tries to "lobby" for something in Second Life does so with an open membership group, in huge group meetings and with members of the press present. I won't say much more, except that some of those who today flamed us for being "exclusive" know very well what I am talking about!

and the ones that do, well sometimes thats by accident!

(wouldn't that be one large group?)

Siggy, I love you. Can I bear your children ?