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

[michael gurstein]

I must admit that I find the criteria being bandied about here re: selection
for CS representation to be quite bizarre. (sorry I'm not exactly sure where
this particular list came from but it has been bandied about by the various
CS honchos in one form or another over the last few days.

 

1.        Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your
individual civil society organisation(s)

 

Hmmm. as I read this what it means is that whoever represents CS doesn't
(can't) have an opinion. what sort of an opinion would/could represent
"Civil Society as a whole".. So the process of selection is done to ensure
the least common denominator/effective representative of any CS values or
interests. I wonder whether the 5 representatives of the corporate sector
are going to follow this form of self-regulation so as to ensure that they
don't represent any corporate interests.. beyond the lowest common
denominator of supporting the market economy. I think not. 

 

2.        Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a
multistakeholder setting

 

Ah, yes the "play nice"/kindergarten criteria, qv. my response to Avri

 

3.        Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report
back as the process progresses

 

Okay, but we've already eliminated most anyone with any serious involvements
with active CS groups so the process of consulting and reporting back seems
a wee bit,vacuous dare I say. we are expecting them to consult and report
back but on..  what exactly 

 

.

Since we are tossing around criteria how about a few more that might
actually have a substantive impact on the effectiveness of CS in
representing CS interests.

 

1.     No participation in CS representation by individuals who have been
part of government delegations for the last five years

2.     No participation in CS except by those who actually have some
experience in the areas in which they are pontificating/err pronouncing..
I.e. if they are talking about "development" we should expect that "our"
representatives have actually gotten their boots dirty in actual development
and not just high level maundering around the issues.

3.     No participation from those who only represent themselves (NGO's or
whatever of 1) and have no evident links to larger CS (or other) networks
beyond the immediate cadre of their IG CS friends and allies. 

 

The criteria that you folks have been prattling on about, point to the
fundamental flaw in IG CS which is that the way you are approaching it, the
only thing apart from lunch which can be agreed upon and thus meet your
criteria are process issues.  No substance, no content, no real policy. just
process. 

 

So CS becomes completely pre-occupied with discussing (its own) positioning
and processes in the larger IG area.  The real issues of policy/governance
are never addressed because they don't (can't possibly) "represent civil
society as a whole".  Rather real policy/governance issues have owners and
interests and represent the potential (and in many cases the reality) of
real conflict-that's what "interests" are about. Policy is about specific
groups within (civil) society with specific interests, needs and concerns
and articulating and representing these in the context of our
engagement-just like the corporate folks of course, who also have specific
interest, needs and concerns and are, dare I say, rather less bashful about
promoting them.

 

FWIW, the Community Informatics Declaration
<http://cirn.wikispaces.com/An+Internet+for+the+Common+Good+-+Engagement%2C+
Empowerment%2C+and+Justice+for+All>  was circulated to an e-list of top (US)
telecom and ICT policy wonks (not by me) and in three days it has generated
50+ substantive contributions responding in one way or another to the CI
text.  Many critical, many supportive but all substantive and very high
level and as a whole making a (potentially) very serious contribution to
Internet Governance/Policy and justifying if anything could, the true value
and significance (and ultimately contribution) that CS can make to these
discussions. The discussion here, among our "CS" colleagues on this
document. zip.

 

M 

 

 

 

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 8:21 PM
To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to
Brazil meeting committees

 

 

 

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:



On 24-Dec-13 03:18, Mawaki Chango wrote:

"Don't worry getting yourself out of poverty by trying to speak for
yourself (for instance, by trying to expose the structural imbalances
that maintain the conditions causing poverty,) just be content with us
taking care of your needs as we understand them (by maintaining and
feeding in the public aid apparatus so that you can get something to eat
everyday while we enjoy self-gratification for doing good)."

 

Well I suppose you can read anything, any way you wish, I contend that your
reading is a prejudicial and specious misconstruction.

I said nothing about people not arguing their case as vociferously as they
might wish.  And I said nothing about not applying for a representative
role.

What I said is that when one accepts a representative role, they go on to
represent the whole group and not just the one particular set of beliefs and
agendas they come in with.

And what I think is wrong is getting a position as a CS representative and
then doing everything you can to put forward your personal agenda at the
cost of the rest of civil society's positions.  Sure make sure your position
gets heard and understood as well as is possible, just don't do it by by
tearing down the work everyone else is trying to do as well. This means that
you have to pick people who despite having a minority view can work with the
majority as well.

So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also put
in the criterion of "plays well with others."

 

 

Well, that was my point, and I believe your latter criterion/qualification
is taken care in one way or the other by the first 3 out of 6 criteria
already applicable.

 

1.      Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual
civil society organisation(s)

2.      Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a
multistakeholder setting

3.      Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back
as the process progresses

 

 And your earlier opposition to the newly proposed criterion did not make
your more balanced position stated above any clearer than my reading of your
arguments was "prejudicial and specious."

 

mawaki



avri

____________________________________________________________
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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131225/eae6ead5/attachment.htm>