<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>What gets interesting is where two people who self identify with much the same label can be moderates with a technical and policy dual background, hardcore ideologues and possibly shades in between these two extremes. </div><div><br></div><div>Self identification becomes quite problematic in this case because the other person's perceptions still come into play to separate out different shades from any particular ideological spectrum. </div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:100%">--srs</div></div><br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> <br>Date: 06/17/2013 5:46 PM (GMT+05:30) <br>To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org <br>Subject: Re: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) <br> <br><br>Chaitanya Dhareshwar <chaitanyabd@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br>> So for example (for clarity, mainly for me) I may say I'm a third<br>> worlder (from India) as well as a third worldist (trying to focus on<br>> improving the developing nations overall) and this would be noted on<br>> the wiki? So that someone who understands that viewpoint would be<br>> able to sympathize/'get' my point better, and someone who does not<br>> get that viewpoint would be perhaps able to reconcile differences and<br>> ask questions accordingly?<br><br>Yes, exactly... and since it'd be you who enters the term “third<br>worldist” into the wiki as a descriptive term for yourself, together<br>with the explanation “trying to focus on improving the developing<br>nations overall”, it would be clear to all that it is acceptable, and<br>not in any way unfriendly, to refer to that perspective and objective as<br>“third worldist”.<br><br>Greetings,<br>Norbert<br><br>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:<br>> <br>> > Chaitanya Dhareshwar <chaitanyabd@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> ><br>> > > "Mapping"? More detail please Nobert, there's newbies (like me)<br>> > > here so not everyone may understand the technical terms... :)<br>> ><br>> > Here's a quick attempt at explaining in somewhat more detail what I<br>> > meant:<br>> ><br>> > Since a significant aspect of what has recently caused heated words<br>> > and hostility on this list seems to have been (a) misunderstandings<br>> > and invalid assumptions about viewpoint of other participants, and<br>> > (b) references to other participants' viewpoints that were<br>> > understood by others to be derogatory and/or otherwise offensive, I<br>> > propose that it would be helpful to increase our mutual<br>> > understanding of what our various viewpoints (I use this term<br>> > broadly in this email, it is intended to include what I have<br>> > previously referred to as “perspectives” and “interests”) are, e.g.<br>> > by means of an online wiki that documents many of them.<br>> ><br>> > As mentioned recently, Sala and I have been discussing setting up a<br>> > wiki for the IGC which would give everyone with an igcaucus.org<br>> > account a personal homepage in relation to the IGC.<br>> ><br>> > I might use that to note e.g. that my viewpoint is broadly a “social<br>> > liberal” one (this might be linked to a wiki page that briefly<br>> > explains what that means in the context of Internet governance). I<br>> > might add that my perspective is significantly shaped by having a<br>> > technical background, by living in a small European country which<br>> > is not part of the EU and which is going through uncomfortable<br>> > experiences of being put under severe pressure by more powerful<br>> > countries, and by having a Kenyan friend who is a pastor among poor<br>> > people in Kenya.<br>> ><br>> > The main part of the “mapping” exercise would be a wiki page that<br>> > lists the various broad categories of viewpoints and links to the<br>> > IGC wiki homepages of those who have chosen to self-identify with<br>> > one of them.<br>> ><br>> > The benefits of such a “map of viewpoints” would include<br>> > - making it easier to refer to viewpoints of IGC participants<br>> > without risk of unintendedly sounding derogatory (after all if I<br>> > have endorsed a particular label as referring to a kind of<br>> > viewpoint that I share, it shouldn't be viewed as offensive when<br>> > that label is then used in reference to the kind of views that I<br>> > have been advocating.)<br>> > - making it reasonably easy to get some background understanding<br>> > on arguments presented by another IGC participant - such<br>> > background understanding can be provided e.g. by links to<br>> > theoretical treatises on particular viewpoints, by explaining the<br>> > particular perspectives and experiences that have significantly<br>> > contributed to shaping a particular viewpoint, etc.<br>> > - documenting the breadth of viewpoints represented in IGC<br>> ><br>> > Of course it is possible that maybe multiple people all choose to<br>> > self-identify in the same way, even while fundamentally disagreeing<br>> > with each other. Such disagreements could also be documented in a<br>> > “map of civil society viewpoints and perspectives”.<br>> ><br>> > Greetings,<br>> > Norbert<br><br><br>-- <br>Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:<br>1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person<br>2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept<br><br></body>