<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
If some people here insist on treating the recent episode of first a
warning and then suspension of the posting rights of a member as one
of political bias by co-cos, then perhaps it is worth having a
discussion on the subject of political biases on this list.<br>
<br>
It is interesting to note how easily, and somewhat unceremoniously,
such deep allegation have been made against the co-cos, and I
understand that it is mostly Norbert who is being targeting. Being
an avid supporter of democratic and accountability seeking processes
I do not really have any major issues with these 'accusations'. If
some people do feel this way well let them say it (although
preferably substantiate it better). Norbert has responded to each
of these accusatory points in good details also pointing to the
avenues where further recourse lies. I also encourage the
disaffected parties to pursue these avenues. <br>
<br>
Meanwhile, let me contribute my views on the proposition that has
been put forward regarding 'two sides of a political spectrum' and
corresponding political biases on this list. Yes, there is a strong
political bias coming from an entrenched 'structure of power' on
this list. That bias is in fact exactly the opposite direction to
what has been made out by the recent accusations. Although anyone
who has tried to pursue with any seriousness a counter-hegemonic
view on this list knows only too well what this 'structure of power'
here is and with what kind of devastating effectiveness it works, a
few recent examples may still be useful because entrenched social
power also has this thing about quickly getting invisible, although
no less potent for that.<br>
<br>
Taking again from the serious attacks against the integrity of
Norbert - our duly elected co-coordinator - one is reminded how
very recently some questions were raised on this list about very
important constitutive processes of multistakeholderism (MSiism) -
with regard to definitions and selection processes of
representatives of the so-called technical and academic community.
In that case, the integrity of the concerned 'high officers' (as in
holders of a public duty, somewhat like our co-cos) was never
questioned by anyone. Simply some definition clarifications were
sought, and some corresponding arguments made. And what happened?
The concerned person gives one indirect response, which includes a
gross personal accusation against Michael, which was confirmed later
to be false, and refuses to engage from there on, even to withdraw
the false accusation (of what has now come to be known as 'double
dipping'). Meanwhile, and see how the 'structure of power' operates
on this list, numerous contributions came down harshly on those who
had raised the process questions, attributing all kinds of personal
motives to those who raised the questions (please note at which
point a discussion is rendered ad hominen). Inter alia, I was
accused repeatedly of having a 'gotcha mentality'. Now, I can assure
you friends, that when a concerted 'shut up' attack of this kind is
launched, using an elaborate rank and file arrangement, and often
employing sophisticated English/ slang by native speakers, it is
mostly enough to 'shut people up'. I still want to know from the
'right thinking' but perhaps silent people on this list why should
such 'shutting up' tactics be accepted and condoned, <i>which is
where the shift to ad hominem first takes place</i>, whereby
political arguments are ascribed to personal characteristics of the
dissenting people. <br>
<br>
To continue with explicating examples, a little later, I asked for a
discussion about the processes employed by civil society focal point
for CSTD selection, and even before anything substantial could be
said or discussed at all, words like 'gotcha thinking' and 'be
careful' etc begun flowing on the list. (Compare this with the
unguarded allegations against Norbert.) Rather amusing, but also
very instructive of what are the 'structures of power' on this list,
and what political biases have their way. (One member even asked me
to be careful not to say anything that may 'irritate him' - what
cheek! Can anyone from the other side of the 'political spectrum'
ever aspire to such a high social standing whereby such smug
pre-warnings can be issued !!) While I wanted a simple discussion,
some process clarifications, and to contribute to codifying
procedures for the future, the fact is that the discussion simply
could not take place. Neither I have the clarifications I wanted,
nor could we codify good processes for the future. Such multifarious
pressures and tactics get brought into play, all of course based on
the existing 'structure of power'. Now if this is the fate of an
effort initiated by me who by any standard is rather hardened after
all the skirmishes and battles on this list (no doubt very tough to
survive) one can predict what may happen to any such move from other
likely 'dissenters'. Well, they mostly dont speak up. People
recognise and work within the 'structure of power'. Not that they
are necessary compromised thus, just that the cost in terms of time,
personal exposure etc becomes too much for most.....<br>
<br>
All this of course has a long and ongoing history. A few months
back, some of us trying to discuss problematic practices of google
were told to back off, and in rather harsh terms. This is the
'structure of power'. People learn to estimate the cost of opening
up certain issues on this list, and that is what has the chilling
effect. A list of taboo issues has thus been created - and the cost
of breaking these taboos is clear. If a few hardier ones still
persist, then they can be pulled into personalised exchanges
(employing some people relatively good at such techniques) and the
real options before those who seek to carry on doing the required
political work become rather difficult. I wont elaborate, but one
needs to be in such positions to know what it takes to persist with
ones political convictions and political work in such a situation.
It is rather too easy (and sometimes convenient) to take narrow
moralistic positions from rarefied heights on these issues, in a
manner that could be blind to the operation of the 'power structure'
which seeks to control the nature of debate in this civil society
group. <br>
<br>
The fact that accusations of political bias on Norbert are being
made so easily and repeatedly also follows the contours of such a
power structure. Were it that a person from the 'other side of the
political spectrum' had done but a fraction of what the 'offending
member' did in the present instance, he would have been chased off
the list months back. For the last many months almost anything I
post on the list is responded to almost immediately by the concerned
member in a most personalised ad hominem manner - of the kind ' you
and/ or your organisations is like this or that'..... For months
now I never reply to his emails (please check archives). However,
such a behaviour does considerably constrain my ability to do a
meaningful discussion on this list. Still, neither did I seek his
removal from the list or even suspension, nor I do so now. He can
stay, and we would manage rather well despite him.<br>
<br>
Our elected co-coordinator can so easily be subject to rather
serious allegations, and he responds to all of them without taking
offence. On the other hand, there are others from which even to ask
clarificatory questions leads to volleys of personalised accusations
against those who dare question, and other, often sophisticated,
stonewalling tactics.... So if there indeed are political biases and
power structures on this list, the nature of them is quite evident.
<br>
<br>
It may be difficult to judge who is right and who less so in a
debate, or between two sides of a 'political spectrum'; however it
is much easier to judge who resists some kind of discussions and
debates and who and what kind of perspectives are victims of such
resistance. Such an exploration may be the best way to begin
understanding what is happening on the list, and what all the 'right
thinking people' must stand up against. Norbert merely acted against
the steep gradient of existing power structure in fulfilling his
duty. The kind of allegations of political bias that are pouring in
is just the minimum he has to face. He has also earned various kinds
of black marks vis a vis the powerful of the IG comity, and he will
have to contend with the negative consequences of concerning any
kind of standing and growth in the global IG space. But some people
just take the attitude - what the heck, simply stick to the
principles, and ones political convictions. I congratulate Norbert
for that. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 10 April 2013 12:36 PM,
Riaz K Tayob wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51650F74.1030204@gmail.com" type="cite">Thanks
for this clarification, and since we are in a phase about turning
over a new leaf: <br>
<br>
The allegations against the coordinators is indeed a serious one,
of bias (understanding of course your decision was made not on one
incident). On the one hand it may be the usual tenor of the list -
for instance calling ad hominem as in one instance with a post by
Gurstein, that was followed the allegation, then promptly onto
substantive discussion. On the other, it is an allegation posted
on the list for consumption. <br>
<br>
As this applies to the conduct of the co-co's as being biased
against a particular view on the political spectrum, this is very
serious indeed. As such I would like to know what you intend to do
about these serious allegations made against you that reflects not
only on yourselves but the IGC as well. IMHO a matter like this
needs to be escalated so that we all are comfortable with the
process and continued role of the co-co's. If an important
constituency feels this way, left unaddressed, it can only have a
chilling effect. <br>
<br>
So outside of the particular case that spurred this allegation
(its merits being a separate matter, detached but not unlinked),
could you please now deal with this serious allegation as we
simply cannot have people on this list feeling this way. As one
Third Worldist I know all too often the effects of
marginalisation, and hope these allegations are dealt with
seriously, in strict accordance with the Charter and that it is
not left to fester. If handled correctly, it will go a long way to
chilling what ought to be limited, spurious allegations, and
provide all with the comfort that these kinds of allegations will
be made in circumstances that have an objective probability of
success in 'prosecution'. <br>
<br>
I am sorry to put you on the spot about this, but needs must.
Thank you for making this attempt, it cannot be easy, but I am
sure many on this list would like decorum on this list that is
comfortable... <br>
<br>
Riaz <br>
<br>
<br>
On 2013/04/10 12:03 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">[with IGC coordinator hat on] <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>