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

[Adam Peake]

Hi Michael,

On Dec 25, 2013, at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

> 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…
>  

Snip

> 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


Excluding can be problematic unless very targeted.  Civil society experts often join government delegations, whether ITU or regional organizations on ICT, development, human rights, trade, etc.  I don't know what impact you hope to achieve, but suspect if adopted some of our best would excluded.

Adam



> 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 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
>  
>