<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18.09.13 22:10, JFC Morfin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VMN8P-00029d-Vd@igcaucus.org" type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.<br>
<br>
Any time I hear about "people's last line of defense and
protection", or anything claiming to do things "for the good of the
people", a little bell rings in my head and I usually either ignore
the rest, or attach "beware" note to it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VMN8P-00029d-Vd@igcaucus.org" type="cite"><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>
</b></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
As you say, anyone, always, acts on their own behalf and for their
own benefit. There are documented cases of people obviously not
acting in their own interests (*), but these are often considered
out of their mind, even if some would attach an "hero" label.<br>
<br>
(*) We had recently a case in my town, when a young man set himself
on fire, during protests to have the mayor resign. The young man
died, the mayor resigned and there was much noise. At the end, the
mayor would have resigned nevertheless, even if few days later and
the man is still dead! He would have done much more for the
protests, that were restarted shortly afterwards, but.. he is still
dead. Nevertheless, a lot of people claimed he did this "for the
people" and to some extent it is true... although he probably just
could not put off the flames in time :(<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VMN8P-00029d-Vd@igcaucus.org" type="cite"><b><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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Being employee of an agency like the NSA is a special case. Just as
being a member of a political party, or religious group, or a
government is a special case. Those people are all "hooked" in one
way or another. Sadly enough, I would believe the same kind of
"hook" exist also in science and education...<br>
<br>
Being employee of a commercial organization is "much less" in my
book, because you can always get off the hook and work elsewhere.
There are special cases of course and at the end, not all companies
are created equal -- some do behave like an special agency or a
government....<br>
<br>
All of this is however a judgement the individual has to make.
Nobody but them knows all the circumstances and it is not
appropriate to attach labels to people just because they work
somewhere.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VMN8P-00029d-Vd@igcaucus.org" type="cite"><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>
</blockquote>
<br>
With this kind of attitude, why should anyone be surprised that less
and less talented people (who obviously have well paying jobs) agree
to participate, especially in "civil society" matters.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VMN8P-00029d-Vd@igcaucus.org" type="cite"><br>
This is the difficulty of multistakeholderism and the difference
between
its polycracy and democracy.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Everything becomes plain and simple, if we remove all this sugar
coating and accept that everyone looks at their own interest first
and foremost.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VMN8P-00029d-Vd@igcaucus.org" type="cite"><b><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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Doesn't this contradict with all the theories you presented above?<br>
<br>
Why should a barrister be able to do it, but an valuable employee
(obviously, an expert in the field) of a commercial subject can not?<br>
If you remove all the experts from a study on a specific subject,
how do you ensure that the outcome ever makes sense? (I know,
"multistakeholderism" mandates that everyone should stay separate
and fight with each other)<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1VMN8P-00029d-Vd@igcaucus.org" type="cite"><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>
<b><br>
</b></blockquote>
<br>
<b>The world is not black and white. If everything was as clean and
ordered as you present it, we would not be having this discussion.<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
</b><br>
</body>
</html>