<html>
<head>
</head>
<body style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<p>You wont have to defend yourself as I totally agree</p>
<p>Unfortunately it is a common sort of attitude among a section or
minority of civil society </p>
<p>--srs (htc one x)<br>
</p>
<p>On 30 October 2013 9:54:44 AM Mawaki Chango <kichango@gmail.com> wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On
Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <span
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net"
target="_blank">suresh@hserus.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I
think what Bill is saying is that there appears to be a refusal to<br>
acknowledge the technical community as civil society or even<br>
multistakeholder in nature, so that any outreach from them is characterized<br>
as a power grab, and there appears to be a refusal to engage in their<br>
processes.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I read the use of the phrase
"power grab" (which I did not bring in the discussion) as an
individual's assessment --hence, inevitably subjective somewhat-- of a
*punctual* situation, not a characterization of everything a given
stakeholder group is or does in this setting. Once it was used to
characterize a behavior in a given context (and only in that context) the
notion can be discussed, assumptions can be made or implications drawn
based on its face value (after all the person making that assessment is not
what you might particularly call an outlier in this group), or conversely
it may be challenged --which is all good. That's part of the normal
discussion, without anyone claiming that this is the definitive
characterization of what a whole group of (necessarily diverse) human
beings is all about.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So now leaving the "power grab" meme aside
(for now), I never seriously got into the discussion as to who is CS and
who's not (I guess as a matter of principle, I must be cautious using
the term "never" if only because computer memory has outpaced
human memory in this day and age. But seriously, I never spent time on that
as far as I can remember.) The way I see this --and please be mindful that
this is not a theory or anything I need or want to get universal agreement
on-- is that every natural person (as in the biological individual human
beings) leaving among other human beings is part of CS *unless*... Unless
they willingly take on the role to represent or be the agent of a
non-natural person, whether it is the government apparatus or a private
corporation or any legally incorporated collection of natural individuals
(which raises the question of CS organizations I'll return to below.)
In this case, it is preferably up to the individual to rally with the
stakeholder group where his or her principal (organization of affiliation)
belongs. Or alternatively, other people who feel the participation of any
such individual(s) in CS processes may skew the outcomes, presumably toward
the interests of their principal which are seen as not aligned with CS
interests in the subject matter may bring up objections. At this point I
have no clear cut guidance to offer as to how to handle objections and
counter-objections of that kind. I just have a sense that if a voluntary
resolution cannot be reached, then it one way or the other becomes a matter
of common sense as well as the plausibility of presumptions and claims made
by all involved, in the view of the public opinion. I guess what I am
trying to say is that it will always be difficult to have an authoritative
procedure to resolve this in a clean manner, if the parties are not willing
to cooperate and be honest with themselves about the difference that there
might be between their current motivations and the goals and interests of
CS.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I must immediately add that as we "practice"
them, I agree that those identities are mostly artificial (or at least
circumstantial) and as a result, they are inevitably shifting from a
context to another for the same individual.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Civil society being as amorphous as it is, there is absolutely no bar to<br>
any caucus or combination of people forming with their own views and ideas<br>
- the problem lies in objecting to other such groups forming, and calling<br>
them power grabs.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In my view, it is the
prerogative of any such groups to form, and they'd do so presumably
whenever they have a distinct set of objectives or interests. They are
entitled to advocate for their views and simply get down to work for their
realization without being called "power grabs." I would assume it
would take more than that (like for instance, a deliberate attempt to shun
or overshadow other stakeholders) for anyone to call that power grab. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
In such a case, is it to be implied that other sections of civil society<br>
too are intent on their own such "power grabs" where they, not
the people<br>
over in the other "power grab" call the shots and drive their
ideology?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, no group has the
monopoly of power grabs (reason why I rejected above the notion that it was
a characterization or labeling of a particular stakeholder group as a
whole.) CS may be subject to power grabs, too, as we are diverse and any
subset of CS may be tempted to overly influence the process at the expense
and sometimes at the exclusion of others. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The notion of CS I have outlined above has not
addressed the case of "professional" and organized CS (through
registered/incorporated legal structures.) As organizations, they have
their mission and their agenda, and there might be plenty of private
citizens around the world who might not be interested by such mission and
agenda or others may criticize them for not using the right methods to
achieve the good they claim, etc. On the face value however, and using
common sense, we do understand that there is a fundamental difference
between, say, Human Right Watch or Doctors Without Borders or Bytes for
All, etc. (my understanding of the latter being only based on their name,
so I might be wrong, but please stay on the bigger picture), and, say, the
International Association of Accountants or the American Association of
Banks (may not be the exact names, but you understand my point... trade
associations.) Maybe one way to put it is that any individual/private
citizen who finds herself in the kind of situation the former type of
organizations purport to improve may (I didn't say "will")
benefit from their action without the said individual having to pay a fee
or a due for that. Which is not to say they are not membership
organizations with due paying members. But their actions are neither
primarily nor exclusively motivated by the personal interests of their
members, nor are they carried out for solely and directly in the interest
of those individual members. So to the extent this information is
available, mission, values, interests, goals, objectives as well as actual
behaviors and actions matter in appreciating in every context what (or
rather whom) CS entails. Hence, as said in another thread, the importance
for IGC (or global CS in IG) to clearly formulate its mission/values/goals
and its interests, etc. </div>
<div><br></div><div>In sum, CS at least in a global context such as this
one is a broad notion that must have room for many inevitably diverse
actors, and be open enough for people to be able to go and come based on
what matters to them at a given point in time. At the very least, I'd
say it includes the following: individuals as private citizens
(representing no other than themselves), organized CS as characterized
above and individuals acting on their behalf, and other sub-culture groups
(to mean a specialized subset, not anything secondary) such as academia and
technical community. However, there will be times and contexts where those
specialized subsets may have a distinctive enough identity (based on their
goals and interests, etc.) to justify they stand as a distinct stakeholder
group in their own right.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'd hope that, going forward and until further
notice, the above have precedence on anything else one might interpret that
I mean to say when discussing about Internet stakeholders, their
relationship and their relevance from CS perspective, etc. Again, it is
just my own pragmatic approach to the question, which is not informed by
theory or research. So yeah, I might have said one or two things that
someone would find inaccurate in which case I would be glad to be
enlightened. But please don't have me to have to come up here and
defend myself ;-) My 2 cents, and only that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mawaki </div><div> </div><blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
That doesn't sound terribly conducive to any sort of consensus<br>
<br>
-suresh<br>
<br>
Mawaki Chango [24/10/13 09:50 +0000]:<div><div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim <<a
href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com"
target="_blank">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Bill,<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake <<a
href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch"
target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
> Hi<br>
><br>
> Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power
grab, a<br>
framing<br>
> that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one
group<br>
> wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they
talked<br>
> and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully
agreed<br>
> goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get<br>
> organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include<br>
people<br>
> who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the
desirable<br>
> end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there
to<br>
> voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate
with the<br>
> people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own<br>
relationship<br>
> to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those
who do<br>
> shouldn't be able to.<br>
<br>
Sums it up nicely.<br>
<br>
><br>
> Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were
invited to get involved,<br>
why do<br>
> "we" need to have a private meeting from which
"they" are excluded?<br>
<br>
good question!<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single
meeting about<br>
this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain?<br>
I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS
meeting<br>
"intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once
we get past the<br>
initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint<br>
meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they
have<br>
different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But<br>
frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR
(direct<br>
"relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the
former is the<br>
most desirable and the latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why
can't<br>
we do both, especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of CS<br>
and those of I* orgs are not fully aligned?<br>
<br>
And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil
meeting"<br>
as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with
summits :-) but<br>
since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would
ask.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
@Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I
say the<br>
"technical community" should take over from governments.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But<br>
what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the<br>
first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can<br>
fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without<br>
linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there<br>
are direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't
voice them<br>
literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations
involving 3<br>
or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't<br>
question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting
and<br>
just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll
have to<br>
start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my<br>
response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such<br>
state of affairs has implications that you did not need to state<br>
explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are<br>
indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as<br>
described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you agree with that (as<br>
implied by your question), then my response to you was warranted. Note that<br>
the said response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs than<br>
it is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are<br>
different.<br>
<br>
Cheers!<br>
<br>
Mawaki<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and<br>
regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in<br>
addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes.
I'm not<br>
willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can<br>
instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes.<br>
<br>
I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react.<br>
Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions?<br>
<br>
--<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>______________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/<u></u>unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/<u></u>info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/<u></u>translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
______________________________<u></u>______________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/<u></u>unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/<u></u>info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/<u></u>translate_t</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>