<html>
<body>
At 18:43 18/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Peter H. Hellmonds
<peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> wrote:<br><br>
> Perhaps we need to make a phone call to clarify<br>
> things. I'll send you my number in a private mail. We can then<br>
> discuss offline and inform the list of the outcome. <br><br>
Update: Peter and I have talked and have amicably resolved the<br>
issue between us.</blockquote><br>
I am glad of that. However, the matter raised key general issues that
have to be discussed outside of friendly phone talk. I concatenate
them.<br><br>
<b>On 09/17/2013 06:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
> Civil society is necessarily amorphous. <br><br>
</b>There would then be NO interest in it, except for some to try to
manipulate it or use it as an alibi for their own agenda. The Civil
society (cf. proposed definition below) is a collective IQ, a source of
precious transcendental critics and suggestions and a pool of competent
lead users who form the people's last line of defense and protection
reserve when an aggression against their common rights crosses the limits
their normal life entitles them to. <br><br>
<b>> Trying to force it into a definition will lead to its just not
existing. <br>
</b>to what Karl commented; <b>I agree with this 100%. Each person is a
bundle of self interests and self conflicts. Each person works that
out in his/her own way.<br><br>
</b>I am sorry, but I 100% disagree with all of this subjectivism
introduced by Peter Hellmonds sentence <b>“When I served in the IGF MAG
as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part of
a civil society”.<br><br>
</b>Peter, being able to understand other stakeholders’ certainly is of
some help toward inter-comprehension, but what you express was a cause
for you to resign as not being trustable. What you express here is
exactly the same as the NSA engineers being trusted in a normative
meeting as engineers, but behaving as NSA employees, with the aggrieving
factor that their colleagues could know who their employer was, and the
other MAG representatives had no way to know your motivations. <br><br>
Your position was perfectly ethical had you been a Judge, an expert, or a
member pronouncing himself in his heart and soul. However, you were not.
You were a business stakeholder’s group representative. In your heart and
soul you should have represented the best interests of businesses.
Otherwise, how could you negotiate with other group resilient sustainable
agreements, if these agreements are biased in favor of Civil Society? No
side can trust you and your deliverables.<br><br>
This is the difficulty of multistakeholderism and the difference between
its polycracy and democracy.<br><br>
In democracy, you are a person representing people through your vote by
majority. In polycracy, you are an authoritative competence advocating
the interest of a constituency toward a consensus that is to be uncovered
(a consensus is to actually pre-exist under conditions to clarify and
agree, otherwise it will never hold). In democracy, you are a person, in
polycracy you are an advocate.<br><br>
<br>
This is why I 100% agree with Norbert, except when he proposes: “<b>A
logical consequence of this is the need for a new category “multi/other”.
I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” category (which by
definition does not have a specific “respective role” in Internet
governance, but which is needed to ensure that everyone who does not
neatly fit into one of the categories with specific “respective roles can
still fully participate in the discourse) violates neither the spirit nor
the letter of the Tunis Agenda.”<br><br>
</b>A barrister has his own opinions, and can express them outside of the
court in wearing his own cap. What we share is to reach robust,
sustainable, efficient consensuses, the esthetic of which is people
centered. Our ethic is to do whatever is transparently good to that end.
I see no problem if an NSA member tells me: “here is my proposition as an
NSA employee”, and adds “as a civil right expert I advise you to try to
find something stronger”. Different caps. <br><br>
Peter, when you say <b>“Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral
conscience. And I do not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of the
company just by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that is
involved in laying the physical underpinning of the Internet.”</b>, I am
sorry but if you keep my respect, you lose my trust. Your paycheck draft
by this business is for helping them to make the internet work better so
that they make more money. <br><br>
- Either this is not their target and if you wish to stay with them
you are to refuse to represent them, <br>
- or this is actually their target and you do to them and us a
disservice in not trying as much as you can (including in publishing it
as long as you did not obtain it, so that they know if they want to keep
you as a representative) to have them share your ideas, so that their
ideas that you represent are also yours.<br><br>
Another point that I would like to make in addition to Norbert is that
you took one of the representative places. Who put you there? Why? Who
would have been picked otherwise? With the same ideas? <br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<b> <br>
</b></body>
</html>