webizen: sustainability linked considerations

started on a document that's seeking to figure out how to ensure people who
aren't being paid to do this sort of work by companies or governments; are
able to maintain dignity, whilst seeking to (and successfully doing) useful
work, for the betterment of mankind[1]

The document[1] is open (ie: edit permissions enabled).  text as of this
point is as follows;  i note - i'm happy to provide webizen.org towards any
such initiative, and also note that it does not appear
https://www.w3.org/community/webizen exist (notwithstanding some heritage
linked to the term)...

IF this sort of thing IS going to be made able to work, it'll require tools
& stuff (inc. investment); which is kinda the point, about illustrating the
considerations therein...

(FWIW:  i've done a few years working towards this kind of thing, as 'web
civics', but that's been really badly sullied, and frankly, parallel paths;
bigger issues than just me).

Cheers,

Timothy Holborn.

Introductory Considerations

The practice of undertaking useful[1], Innovative[2] work[3] in relation to
Cyber[4] infrastructure[5] for the betterment of our natural world,
biosphere, societies & humanity at large - requires the input of natural
persons acting as agent on behalf of themselves and through that lens,
human kind…


This has traditionally been considered to be a form of ‘hobby’ or something
other than ‘work’.  Various regulatory, legal and other humanitarian
cohorts make considerations about work or ‘work rights’ including the UN[6]
that are not easily displayed in a legally defensible manner as ‘compliant
protocols’.

This in-turn; transposes to a complex problem area of defining ‘usefulness’
of ‘work’ and its associative economic linkages, in various ways.
Furthermore; there are a number of important ‘temporal’ factors that have
meaningful interactions with how it is ‘useful work’, be defined.

The easiest way power can subvert fairness is to eradicate an innovator
only to illustrate the same concept later on, using different vocabulary
(or language) and/or with different ‘exploits’ employed, for gainful
purposes.  Connected to this problem, is a link to the cost of lawful
redress for acts causing injury; which is made particularly more
problematic, when considered on a world-wide basis.

Principals.

There are a bunch of principles linked to humanitarian considerations of
‘fairness’ when linked to acts and/or expenditure of time & energy, upon
fields of work (as distinct, to recreation and sleep). This was made clear
some time ago as a consequence of the uprising known as the ‘8 hour work’
movement[8]

It is the purpose of persons involved in ‘good works’ to act in accordance
with the philosophical principles linked to ‘rule of law’ and/or ‘common
sense’ as is a prerequisite for being ‘judged by one's peers’ in a court of
law; by association to ‘charges’ made against a person, that suggests they
were engaged in wrongs, causing injury and/or harm and/or unlawful
behaviour.

It is not the place of ‘technical standards bodies’ or related corpus /
groups - to subvert ‘rule of law’ or human rights principles more broadly.

Open Internet Standards Governance[9][10]

Internet society has spoken about a ‘chapter toolkit’[11] that in-turn
references a concept ‘open stand’[12].  There is a method to create an
international ‘topic chapter’[13][14] which in-turn ends-up producing a
‘legal entity’ that is able to curate financial flows (manage money, etc.).

A potential governance (more sustainable) solution?

The concept of ‘corporation’ comes from latin ‘body of people’[15].  This
heritage is believed to still be legally supported by law throughout the
world; although, many adaptations from it, have different consequential
structures, meaningings, implications, etc.

One of the many ways illustrated about how new structures could be made to
work include the examples provided by slicing pie[16][17] and[/or] open
collective[18]; yet there is a linked association between the means to
support ‘common legitimacy’ of sovereign nations and inter-national
world-order[19] and the cyber production works (and who does it) to create
and/or engender a derivative outcome to support that form of ideologically
bonded consideration and related works.

Therein - I believe (links sought / required) that the means through which
a contract is able to be considered binding; is that it must have
consideration / benefit, for both (or many) parties involved.

A contract that requires one party to ‘agree’ and provide; without benefit
to the provider (of value, which is in-turn linked to the purpose of having
any agreement whatsoever) is in-effect, not lawfully enforceable (link
required to interpretative precedent / examples / etc.).

AND SO THEREFORE: any contract, that is ‘tainted’ by ‘immoral conditions’
(ie: slave labour and/or the gainful use of other peoples work derivatives,
without lawful consideration and/or unlawful perversions of that work) is
non-binding.  In-order to ensure compliance with protocols that require
mutual benefit, a means to address these underlying issues is required as a
matter of hygiene, probity & procedural fairness (alongside proper
acknowledgement frameworks).

Defining a ‘foundation’ that can support how we can socio-economically
support those who do work that is required to support us, our societies
(more broadly); and, how it is we define what it is that means…


Links

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+useful

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+innovative
[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+w
<https://www.google.com/search?q=define+work>




[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bjhfUN4NlpNsUnU41irWMVr1r5Chp92RFsvk13ySWOU/edit?usp=sharing