<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=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (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";
color:black;}
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>Unfortunately, many people's stand is where they sit.
Arrogant communications which can instigate anyone is old time bad politics and
zero intimidating in current environment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I really hope Suresh to bear all this with dignity
& courage. I have seen him taking the causes in a few yet very
effective words. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Naresh Ajwani<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><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";
color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Wednesday 10 April 2013 12:36 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal>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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>[with IGC coordinator hat on] <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>