<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of
civil socie</title></head><body>
<div>All,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>There are some important issues in this intechange.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>First, I speak only for myself in this forum, not at all for
ICANN. What I say here has noting to do with my connection with
ICANN. Perhaps I should have made that explicit, but I thought
it would be obvious. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In addition, ICANN's mandate is to ensure the safety and security
of the Internet with regard to assigned names and numbers, and to work
for the public interest in doing so. Its mandate is purposely
bounded, and I suspect that almost all of the people who subscribe to
this list would like to keep it this way.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Second, thinking about a longer term strategy for civil society
does not preclude acting in the short term, whether it's preparing a
position paper or actually engaging in work the field to support
valued principles. Furthermore, a longer term vision/strategy
that has achieved consensus is likely to be helpful in informing short
term activities. My post concerned itself with Wolfgang's
suggestion,not with the draft that is currently being scrutinized by
the group.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Third, I like practical solutions. I don't like
establishing goals that cannot possibly be achieved and for which no
action can be specified and is taken. In particular, I don't
like goals that provide self-satisfaction to the person who sets them
but does nothing to work toward that goal in an effective
manner.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Let's look at the United Nations MDGs just as an example.
Consider goal 4: reducing infant mortality:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab><font
face="Arial Bold" size="+1" color="#6F1111">Reduce by two thirds,
between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Now I believe that no one on this list, and certainly no one at
the United Nations, is in favor of any residual infant mortality.
However, note that the goal is not to eliminate infant mortality
completely, but to reduce it very significantly. This is
possibly a realistic goal. If it can be met (and Iam not an
expert on whether it is feasible or not), then a next reasonable goal
would be to reduce it further.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>There are some things that you can do with a realistic goal such
as this. for example, you can analyze where and why the rate of
infant mortality is high, and consider what measures, if taken, would
reduce it and by how much. You can prioritize efforts toward
achieving this goal and get the biggest return for the money
spent.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It's interesting to speculate what kinds of goals might be
appropriate for civil society actors -- presumably
including subscribers to this list -- if such an
approach were taken. Here are some examples that have some
appeal for me; if you don't like them, choose some that you like
better:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>1. Work toward achieving formal acceptance of confidentiality of
information on the Internet in 80% of the countries in the world.
Develop or use an existing measure of open governance hostility to
identify governments where action at the local level is needed and
should be supported. Transparency International and others are
engaged in this type of activity.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>2. Work toward establishing and propagating a collection of
techniques, tools and training that will allow civil society
investigators in countries with less-than-open governments to be
effective in their collection of information while protecting
themselves, their data,and their sources. Citizen Lab in Toronto
is an excellent example of this approach.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>3. Develop policy statements that are helpful in understanding
situations and that prescribe realistic actions to improve the
situation. The access paper of APC is a good example of such an
effort.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>4. Develop educational programs that educate people
internationally regarding technology, governance, economics --
whatever is necessary to seed governments and other organizations with
people who understand an are or will be in positions to affect the
policies of their governments. The ICANN Studentkreis and Diplo
Foundation's instructional program in Internet governance are good
examples of this.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>5. Work in the field, assisting groups and countries with
spreading technology and working to provide affordable and available
access to it with commitments of confidentiality of information.
McTim has spent a lot of time doing exactly this. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This world isn't perfect. Bad things happen, very often not
to the right people. In the very short run, we are often
powerless to do anything about it. However, in the longer run,
we can work towards an environment, country by country, ultimately at
a global level, in which far fewer bad things happen, and the set of
ideals to which most of us subscribe will be more broadly respected
and practiced.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This takes work. Discussion is useful, but is likely to be
sterile unless followed by or accompanied by significant action.
I argue that the action should be directed toward achievable goals,
achievable relative to the mandate and the resources of the
organization, both in the short and long run.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I trust that I've spelled out my opinions and feelings
sufficiently so that there will be no further misinterpretation.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>George</div>
<div><br></div>
<div
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span
></span>~~~~~</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 2:41 PM -0800 1/18/10, Eric Dierker wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Please pull your head out of the clouds
and look at what this paper is designed for.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>All these concepts are beautiful and
wonderful. Perhaps this is why we say: Those who can do,,, those who
cannot teach. (not specific here but the concept applies)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Would it make more sense for an ICANN bod
member to want to guide us from practical into ethereal?? I am
just saying....</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I especially like the tenor that we
should lesson goals away from what is right and more into what is
achievable. Yes we should set our ideals low, like "at least some
folks should have access to knowledge". Like telling a rookie,
"just be glad we let you play" leave the scoring to us old
veterans.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Today is a reality:<b> Iranian
authorities have warned opposition supporters against using text and
e-mail messages to organise protest rallies. </b> Note that
opposing this notion would be a "Utopia". And ICANN would
never have a stance against it, lest they offend.<br>
<br>
--- On<b> Sat, 1/16/10, George Sadowsky<i>
<george.sadowsky@attglobal.net></i></b> wrote:<br>
<blockquote><br>
From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@attglobal.net><br>
Subject: Re: [governance] WG: Concern for the future of civil society
re<br>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org, ""Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang""
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de><br>
Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010, 3:55 PM<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>All,<br>
<br>
I thank Wolfgang for contributing the wisdom in his message below to
the list.<br>
<br>
In particular, the notion of a long run strategy, with long run
defined goals and objectives for civil society, is very appealing.
It would provide a compact and clearly articulated vision of
what the desired goals are as well as a guide for short run activities
that would encourage the attainment of those goals.<br>
<br>
I like Wolfgang's emphasis on viewing civil society activities in a
broader scope, including not only IGF but also ITU, GAID and the
United Nations. There are a number of players in this space;
some will continue play in it indefinitely, some will fade out of
existence, and others are likely to be born. Having a vision
that concentrates upon principles is likely to me more useful in a
shifting landscape of different organizations with changing and
different objectives.<br>
<br>
Having long run articulated goals that are not so utopian as to be
unachievable appeals very much to me. As Wolfgang notes, there
will be a post-MAG/IGF period, we are already entering a
post-JPA/ICANN period, and it's likely that there will be a post-GAID
period also. What in the long run are the characteristics of the
Internet governance regime -- as well as the state of
ICT4D delivery (which may be as or more important) -- that
civil society could practically achieve in those future periods?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
George<br>
<br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span
></span>~~~~~~~<br>
<br>
At 1:13 PM +0100 1/16/10, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi all<br>
><br>
> McTim is right, there is no "rough
consensus".</blockquote>
<blockquote>><br>
> I did not jump into the discussion because I am very busy these
days with some other activities, however I follow the debate and would
warn to move forward too fast.<br>
><br>
> There is a need for a more fundamental clarification of the whole
issue and a more strategic re-orientation of the IGC and the role of
civil society in Internet Governance policy development in the coming
years. This is part of a broader package of post MAG/IGF, post
JPA/ICANN and post GAID/UN. What is the role of the IGC in all these
processes (including the forthcoming ITU pushed WSIS Forum in May 2010
and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2010). And what the
IGC is doing in other process where Internet Governance becomes an
issue (ACTA is just one example)? And how the IGC positioned itself to
new processes in the UN General Assembly (with regard to Internet
security and governance, pushed by the government of Russia in the 2nd
committee)? And what we are doing in cases like Google vs. China?<br>
><br>
> Before we make hasty statements on the future of the IGF,
probably we should start to discuss a more strategic vision paper on
"Civil Society and Internet Governance 2015". If we have
something like this until the IGF in Vilnjus this would be great. We
could have an extra one day pre-conference of the IGC to invite also
other stakeholders and we could organize one or two workshops around
this strategic re-orientation within the IGF 2010 programme.<br>
><br>
> Jeremy, I understand that as a new co-chair you want to
"deliver" something, but sometimes it is better for a chair
just to enable the members of the group to exchange their views, to
stimulare their thinking and to moderate a bottom up opinion building
process. Strong leadership includes also the capacity to listen, to
ask questions (not to give quick answers) and to steer the process
from behind, where needed.<br>
><br>
> Best regards<br>
><br>
> Wolfgang<br>
></blockquote>
<blockquote
>____________________________________________________________</blockquote
>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>