<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 27, 2013 12:49 PM<br><b>To:</b> michael gurstein<br><b>Cc:</b> bestbits@lists.bestbits.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 25 Dec 2013, at 11:05 am, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I must admit that I find the criteria being bandied about here re: selection for CS representation to be quite bizarre… (sorry I’m not exactly sure where this particular list came from but it has been bandied about by the various CS honchos in one form or another over the last few days…</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:62.25pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-26.25pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>1.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s)</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Hmmm… as I read this what it means is that whoever represents CS doesn’t (can’t) have an opinion… what sort of an opinion would/could represent “Civil Society as a whole”.. So the process of selection is done to ensure the least common denominator/effective representative of any CS values or interests… I wonder whether the 5 representatives of the corporate sector are going to follow this form of self-regulation so as to ensure that they don’t represent any corporate interests.. beyond the lowest common denominator of supporting the market economy… I think not…</span></i><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Well, we are talking largely administrative, not policy, positions - and I think it is fairly obvious that there are some shared concerns within civil society, such as ensuring adequate representation for CS.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] Of course there are areas of CS interest overall including representation but the question is representation for what… representation means putting forward positions/interests/values but this criteria clearly denies that, since positions necessarily come out of “individual civil society organizations” (where else could they possibly come from)..<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Rather this criteria is Seinfeld-ian… One can say anything one likes about anything at all as long as one says nothing about anything …<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And you are suggesting that there is no linkage/overlap/blurred boundaries between the admin and the policy… I guess that you haven’t been following the MAG-IGF where there is a very clear and dare I say oppressive policy control on the activities/outcomes of the IGF through the errr.. “administrative” structures and appointments in the MAG.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:62.25pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-26.25pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>2.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Ah, yes the “play nice”/kindergarten criteria, qv. my response to Avri</span></i><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Well, some of us prefer to think of it as work productively rather than 'play nice'. I appreciate that there are some of us who do not think working productively with other stakeholder groups is a priority, but I can't see why they would want to apply for a position coordinating with other stakeholder groups. Or why we would want to select them for that role. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Perhaps you can suggest to us why we might want specifically to select representatives who are not able to work with other stakeholder groups?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] surely the issue is to represent “civil society” interests in their variety and complexity and doing so will necessarily involve upsetting (not playing nice) with other stakeholder groups who are similarly pursuing their interests – with such interests necessarily, at least on occasion, coming into conflict… <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And on what possible basis can this kind of matter be determined in advance… I know that the NSA’s Total Information Dominance program is designed to predict aberrant behavior before it happens but fortunately for all of us, Civil Libertarians and others have been working to ensure that we don’t at least for the moment, live in such a “Total Recall” world where people can be accused and convicted on the basis of what they might do… but perhaps the distinguished illumanti of the CS Central Committee have unique insight or privileged access to this kind of information…</span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:62.25pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-26.25pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>3.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:62.25pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Okay, but we’ve already eliminated most anyone with any serious involvements with active CS groups so the process of consulting and reporting back seems a wee bit,vacuous dare I say… we are expecting them to consult and report back but on…. what exactly</span></i><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>I would imagine some of those selected might take your characterisation of them as not having serious involvement with active CS groups as somewhat pejorative. Is there anyone in particular you think this applies to?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] well let’s call this what it is, the “LinkedIn Criteria”—Since as per Criteria one and two anyone with any serious engagement with a CS organization that actually stands for something i.e. has some serious interests that it feels necessary to actively pursue is automatically eliminated, then what precisely will the remainder be communicating about… not issues of significant interest to groups within civil society (unless they have some sort of perverse passion for whether CS has a 3 minute or a 6 minute speaking slot at some meeting or other) rather the communication will be of the form that continuously burdens my inbox from LinkedIn… notices of meeting I have no interest in attending, notices of papers I have no time to read, idle chit chat on subjects of only the mildest passing concern—does the LinkedIn connection begin to ring a bell… Certainly nothing wrong with it, but in a real CS engaged environment this criteria would be of only very secondary significance because what it is pointing to would be completely taken for granted and highly highly noticeable if it were to be absent…</span></i></b><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Since we are tossing around criteria how about a few more that might actually have a substantive impact on the effectiveness of CS in representing CS interests…</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>1.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>No participation in CS representation by individuals who have been part of government delegations for the last five years</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Individuals who participate in both CS and government is disproportionately likely to come from smaller nations, where there are a smaller number of people with Internet policy and governance skills, so those with experience are more often called on to fill government delegations etc. So this would have a practical effect of excluding those from smaller nations disproportionately, which seems a very bad idea to me. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Not that it is restricted to smaller nations, of course. As Adam points out, larger nations often bring large delegations to the ITU etc, and civil society people are often included. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>I can see the principle here - but it doesn't seem likely to actually help our effectiveness. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] I’ll be very interested in an empirical test of your hypothesis here… My strong guess based on experience is that it is the larger more “engaged” delegations/countries which have the largest coteries including CS folks because they have the budgets (to pay for travel etc.) and they have the specific interests in ensuring that they have sympathetic voices “on other side” i.e. in CS (noting that in most instances of significant policy matters globally CS is in fact “on the other side” because they are pursuing real issues on behalf of a real civil society and even if indirectly the well-being of all of us… the smaller countries don’t have budgets for their own staff let alone CS folks…</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>2.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>No participation in CS except by those who actually have some experience in the areas in which they are pontificating/err pronouncing.. I.e. if they are talking about “development” we should expect that “our” representatives have actually gotten their boots dirty in actual development and not just high level maundering around the issues…</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Are we then expected to only appoint representatives for broader policy forums to have experience of all policy areas they might possibly be involved in discussing? And this is expected to be a better alternative to simply asking them to consult with colleagues?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] shouldn’t people be expected to know something of what they are talking?</span></i></b><span class=apple-tab-span> </span><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>3.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> <span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>No participation from those who only represent themselves (NGO’s or whatever of 1) and have no evident links to larger CS (or other) networks beyond the immediate cadre of their IG CS friends and allies.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Which, of course, cuts out many of the most experienced advocates in our networks, if they don't happen to have an appropriate gig at the time. Again, I can see the reasoning, but I don't see how it would enhance our effectiveness. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] you somehow are making a linkage between “most experienced” and “advocates”, again something worth an empirical examination.. It could just as easily be that folks who have been around a long time who don’t have linkages into larger networks are simply acting in their own interests, whatever the depth of their “experience” and one way to control for that is to ensure a degree of accountability which comes from at least ensuring that there are manifest links to a network outside of the immediate circle of purportedly “</span></i></b>experienced advocates”.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The criteria that you folks have been prattling on about, point to the fundamental flaw in IG CS which is that the way you are approaching it, the only thing apart from lunch which can be agreed upon and thus meet your criteria are process issues. No substance, no content, no real policy… just process…</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>We are mostly selecting criteria for process based positions, so yes. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] and that says it all… surely CS is about something more than process… something other than another Seinfeld sitcom… are there no real issues of CS concern in the area of Internet Governance… Well as I’ve been repeatedly pointing out the <a href="http://cirn.wikispaces.com/An+Internet+for+the+Common+Good+-+Engagement%2C+Empowerment%2C+and+Justice+for+All">Community Informatics community thinks so</a> and is looking for the opportunity to raise these issues in the appropriate policy venues… all of this humbuggery around criteria and mickey mouse ad hominem’s is precisely designed to deny that opportunity…</span></i></b><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>So CS becomes completely pre-occupied with discussing (its own) positioning and processes in the larger IG area. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>You've been a fairly enthusiastic participant in discussions about how civil society representatives should be selected yourself.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal> <b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] precisely to ensure that the farce that is currently being played wouldn’t be allowed to happen, but there you go..<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M</span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Cheers<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>David<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>