<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 Thursday 19 September 2013 01:40 AM,
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0B31501A-DBF8-4E60-A760-DD6D0F7F8229@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>Hi JFC, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hear what you are saying and it implies that things must be
black and white. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> In a former life I was legal counsel for a Telco which would
have made me private sector but I was advocating matters of
public interest and not just looking out for the best interests
of my employer then. In fact being involved in civil society
from as early as 1987 have helped me to have a more balanced
worldview when dealing with the corporate world. I used it to
engender awareness within my own organisation on multiple
issues.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have since left to form a Think Tank which is independent,
self funded. I consider myself to be civil society. I was the
inaugural chair of our National Cyber Security Working Group
which is actually Multistakeholder in composition but reports to
My country's Ministry of Defence. Following handing over, I am
now Chairing the Legal Sub Committee of the Working Group and
advise the Government but am NOT on their payroll. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nothing above bars you from being a full fledged civil society
member if that is the primary identity that you would like to carry
and present , as I have seen you do. But dont you agree that if you
were in the pay of say a commercial entity with a direct interests/
stake in global IG, that would be entirely a different matter. Same
issue with someone directly in charge of IG issues with a
government. Their views are welcome, they can participate in
discussions, but they can hardly be given decision making powers in
a civil society groups. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0B31501A-DBF8-4E60-A760-DD6D0F7F8229@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't see any merits that can come from policing the
current subscribers on this list and pigeon holing them into
categories. If people want a pure civil society list, they can
easily start one.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I dont know what you mean by purity, but if it is about certain
standards of avoiding conflict of interest, representing public
rather than private interest, and the such, so yes, maybe that is
what is needed. That is if indeed some people would like to keep
insisting that IGC is a kind of multistakeholder group. There can
and should be multistakeholder groups and lists, but while the
discussions in the e-space of IGC were always open to all, beyond
that it was always meant to be a civil society group.....<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0B31501A-DBF8-4E60-A760-DD6D0F7F8229@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> I don't like anyone telling me what I am and what I am not.
The test of the matter should be in the levels of contribution
on substantive matters, policy, statements, influence etc.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
not at all on the substance of them?<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0B31501A-DBF8-4E60-A760-DD6D0F7F8229@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> Similarly, the attacks on Peter Hellmonds are uncalled for.
Whilst there is a way to highlight your point but you need to be
able to raise it without resorting to attacks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the record, I object to any type of pigeon holing. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
Kind Regards,</div>
<div>Sala</div>
<div><br>
Sent from my iPad</div>
<div><br>
On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:10 AM, JFC Morfin <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> At 18:43 18/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Peter H.
Hellmonds <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu">peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu</a>>
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> </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br>
<span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br>
<span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br>
<span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br>
<span> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>