[bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees

[William Drake]

Hi

On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Guru गुरु <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

> On 12/23/2013 07:52 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi Avri, I couldn't agree more. Plus, there are so many underrepresented views in this space 
> 
> Jeanette,
> 
> I strongly agree with you that there are so many under represented views in this space.

As do I

> (Basically that the current 'CS' mostly represents a very small section of interests.)

Particularly the most aggressive and persistent.  Others give up and fall silent et voila, and down and down we spiral into acrimony and irrelevance, at least in some spaces.
> 
> 
>> that I wonder if this really makes a solid selection criteria.
>> 
> 
> However I could not understand this logic -  since there are many views under represented let us ignore them? That would only reinforce existing hegemonies (which are very strong in the IG space).

One logic could be that many people who believe their views to be consistent with advancing the interests of the underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing positions on how to do that.  So how then does one select on this criteria, other than based on the views of the selectors, who’s the most aggressive and persistent, etc? 

Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldn’t be concerned about ensuring representation of underrepresented/marginalized views/groups, but rather that this is a hard criteria to apply in a fair and neutral manner in a nomination process.  Why not also say nominees must also favor freedom?  In contrast, the ability to work well with other stakeholders, represent one’s SG professionally, and reflect the range of views in one’s SG are a bit more empirically assessable.

Best,

Bill
> 
> On the contrary, I would think the basic legitimacy / unique aspect for CS participation is to ensure inclusion of marginalised / under represented groups.
> 
> regards,
> Guru
> 
>> jeanette
>> 
> 
>> 
>> Am 23.12.13 15:15, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution us
>>> against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to
>>> stand-in for the diversity that is the  Civil  Society viewpoint.  Many
>>> time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous
>>> with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'.
>>> 
>>> I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also
>>> not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out the
>>> views of others who also minority viewpoints.  Even people with minority
>>> views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent the
>>> diversity of CS view adequately and need to be the sort of people who
>>> can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at
>>> cross-purposes.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp
>>>> 
>>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


*******************************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
********************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131224/c9f3d137/attachment.htm>