<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Hi All<br>
<br>
Since I proposed the marginalised groups linkage/ representation
criterion, I think I must defend it...<br>
<br>
Apparently, it is being proposed that it is difficult to ascertain
linkages with </font><font face="Verdana">marginalised </font><font
face="Verdana">groups and causes . Some of the same people are
very keen on 'being able to work with other stakeholders' as a
rather more important as well as ascertainable criterion..<br>
<br>
Such a position IMHO represents the core of what my organisation
and many other groups see as problematic with a good amount of
civil society currently engaged with IG... Firstly, it it patently
wrong to say that it is more difficult to assess the nature of a
civil group's or even individual's work and linkages with
different causes and interest groups than it is to assess a
person's likeability among other stakeholders (and of course, with
'other stakeholders' here we mostly mean big business and the
technical community, also quite often on the roll of big business,
which itself is a rather limited view of 'stakeholders')) .
Secondly, it seems to valorise (or at least has the practical
effect of doing so) the extent of relationship building with big
business and some other groups close to big business over the
representation of interests of marginalised groups and causes ...
<br>
<br>
First, about the criterion of representation of marginalised
groups/ causes.... In fact, in most of civil society spaces that I
am familiar with, it is indeed almost necessary to have
(demonstratable) linkages with marginalised groups and causes.
Such linkages can of course rather easily be demonstrated, if they
exist... From the predominate nature of ones work, positions,
pronouncements, etc, and also from the visible work/ activity
linkages to other groups, grass-root communities, and so on.... I
have no idea why would one consider this as difficult to
demonstrate..<br>
<br>
Next, about the criterion of 'being able to work with other
stakeholders - first of all, I would ask those who push this
criterion as one of the most important one to tell us, what are
their verifiable means of asserting/ using it. To me it appears as
a subjective behavioural assessment. In a patently political
process, political criteria have to be given much greater
importance than subjective behavioural ones, which can easily be
mis- applied. Next, also please clarify which all stakeholders
you consider as the ones that every potential nominee should be
able to work with. <br>
<br>
Pending the explanation, let me speculate a bit... I suspect, the
stakeholders that are meant here - or generally, in relation to
which this criterion gets applied - is business community and the
technical community ( defined </font><font face="Verdana">as
being those directly engaged with or close to 1* group). Now,
people will need to be blind to not see that the business
community in IG spaces is the big global business. Or even much
of technical community around also have close relationships with
big business. For instance, excellent human beings that the
involved persons may be, I could never fathom why ISOC has to
take their successive CEOs from the US telco industry, which, if
you really look at it, is perhaps the biggest enemy of an 'open
Internet' that ISOC professes!. I know by making such assertions I
may be sliding into the category of those who could be considered
as 'not being able to work with other stakeholders'. What kind of
fellow raises questions about the head of the very apex
organisation of the tech community! This is the 'chilling effect'
that this criterion sets in, if applied loosely... Civil society
must beware. <br>
<br>
Lets get real! In the civil society that I move around in, being
too friendly with a Microsoft, or Monsanto or Shell is not
considered a virtue ... It is rather more likely to make you
suspect... The main raison d'etre of civil society is to ask
difficult questions, and ask them ceaselessly, from those in power
- include big corporates, and those who run powerful tech
organisations. Asking such questions is of course not going to
make one popular among them. Dont people here see that by pushing
such selection criterion right to the top, one is encouraging a
wrong kind of civil society... <br>
<br>
And why does being able to work with grassroots communities,
groups organised around marginalised interests and causes, and
well of course, in the global context, with developing country
govs not considered as the ability to work with other
stakeholders. (In an overwhelming majority of global governance
spaces, NGOs have not had good working relationships with at least
some developing country govs - trade, IT, climate change,
development policy, health, education global governance
reform,......). It is important to realise that many who can earn
a lot of points about being close to big business or IG tech
community are likely </font><font face="Verdana">to </font><font
face="Verdana">(although not , necessarily) cut a very bad
picture if they were to try and engage with these other groups
that I mention here... So guys, lets open up our sights to look
beyond an increasingly narrow global IG's privileged in-space. <br>
<br>
( Vint Cerf can call government types at the ITU as guys with
peanut sized brains, and recently reassert that he enjoyed the
strong reception that his comments got - but he would still be
chosen to head a global multistakeholder IG panel. On the other
hand, I may be compromising my 'workability with other
stakeholders' even by reporting this fact from news reports in
this manner!</font><font face="Verdana"> It is always about power
isnt it...</font><font face="Verdana"> But isnt civil society the
one that has to resist 'power'? ) <br>
<br>
Various kind of 'criteria for selection' denote what is valued by
a group, which tends to set norms of defining the nature of a
group, here of civil society involved in IG spaces.... I think
anyone doing any kind of selection should specifically ask for
details of how every applicant connects to issues and groups that
are typically marginalised and under-represented... And while
assessing 'ability of work with other stakeholders' be clear what
exactly is meant - including what kind of stakeholders are being
considered, and what is the meaning of being able to work with
them. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Verdana"><br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 24 December 2013 07:58 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:A45A910E-8F4C-40C9-BF5D-72398B26AE6F@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi, <br>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Guru à¤à¥à¤°à¥ <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:guru@itforchange.net">guru@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">On 12/23/2013 07:52 PM, Jeanette
Hofmann wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Avri, I couldn't agree more.
Plus, there are so many underrepresented views in this
space <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Jeanette,<br>
<br>
I strongly agree with you that there are so many under
represented views in this space.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
As do I</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">(Basically that the current 'CS'
mostly represents a very small section of interests.)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Particularly the most aggressive and persistent. Â Others give
up and fall silent et voila, and down and down we spiral into
acrimony and irrelevance, at least in some spaces.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">that I wonder if this really makes a
solid selection criteria.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
However I could not understand this logic - Â since there
are many views under represented let us ignore them? That
would only reinforce existing hegemonies (which are very
strong in the IG space).<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
One logic could be that many people who believe their views to
be consistent with advancing the interests of
the underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing
positions on how to do that. Â So how then does one select on
this criteria, other than based on the views of the selectors,
whoâs the most aggressive and persistent, etc? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldnât be
concerned about ensuring representation of
underrepresented/marginalized views/groups, but rather that
this is a hard criteria to apply in a fair and neutral manner
in a nomination process. Â Why not also say nominees must also
favor freedom? Â In contrast, the ability to work well with
other stakeholders, represent oneâs SG professionally, and
reflect the range of views in oneâs SG are a bit more
empirically assessable.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
On the contrary, I would think the basic legitimacy / unique
aspect for CS participation is to ensure inclusion of
marginalised / under represented groups.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
regards,<br>
Guru<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">jeanette<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
Am 23.12.13 15:15, schrieb Avri Doria:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria,
but i caution us<br>
against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific
view, to<br>
stand-in for the diversity that is the  Civil  Society
viewpoint. Â Many<br>
time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view
is synonymous<br>
with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else
agrees with'.<br>
<br>
I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick
people who are also<br>
not so extreme in the singularity of their view that
they cancel out the<br>
views of others who also minority viewpoints. Â Even
people with minority<br>
views need to take a big-tent view if they are to
represent the<br>
diversity of CS view adequately and need to be the sort
of people who<br>
can be expected to work with their fellow CS
representatives, and not at<br>
cross-purposes.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Thanks all, I agree, and will
support the addition of this criterion. gp<br>
<br>
Ginger (Virginia) Paque<br>
IG Programmes, DiploFoundation<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
    <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
    <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div apple-content-edited="true">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Palatino;
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Palatino;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Palatino;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:
Palatino; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align:
-webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing:
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:
Palatino; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br>
*******************************************************************<br>
William J. Drake<br>
International Fellow &Â Lecturer<br>
 Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br>
 University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, <br>
 ICANN, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ncuc.org">www.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> (direct), <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>
(lists),<br>
 <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.williamdrake.org">www.williamdrake.org</a><br>
********************************************************************</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>