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

Thu Dec 26 03:33:49 EST 2013

Cannot but agree with you Michael.

On the one hand we have people (ISOC propagandista et al) who fight to counter any ambition to look for single definition, single focus, progress, inclusion, or convergence - to keep the 'statUS-quo' in place?- and  we have these professional blablaters such as these nice guys at Club Med holiday-camps who make sure that full opinions, diversity of views, and other alternative thinking, never reach a point of clarity. 

I am afraid that this is exactly what has prevented the IGF fora at large to come up with Internet governance concrete progress. What have they achieved these nice-guys, apart from being gratified as member of ICANN board, conference keynote speaker abusing the mic, or being paid for as expert-of-the-day at ICANN HLP and so forth? 

We know that ICANN and I* fauna are now playing Brazil down. A one-shot conference, should they really care about it? Brazil has difficulty with getting other governments to participate their conference. Has Brazil been trap in the same self-proclaimed attitude as of the many members of the IG priesthood? The best I* bet would be that the Sao Paulo conference to turn into a domestic exercise to protect Brazilian digital space (no great wall anyway). In the meantime, they keep flooding us with fluffy criteria and other let's-lose-our-time blabla. I am rude, and I regret it. But it is even more a pity to see all that permanent non-sense.

2014 should be the year for a big change. For a fair debate and concrete results. And a full stop to that long lasting masquerade.

JC

Le 26 déc. 2013 à 04:28, michael gurstein a écrit :

> Bill
>  
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 8:18 PM
> To: Guru गुरु
> Cc: Best Bits
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees
>  
> Snip…
>  
> 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?
> [MG>] this of course could be said of any possible criteria… but one way of proceeding would be to examine whether those making the claim had any bonifides in the area…
>  
>  
> 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. 
> [MG>] as above… how on earth are you going to apply your “kindergarten” “niceness” criteria apart from getting together with your mates and passing around gossip, as an example… And of course, this is silliness… The CI network is not claiming to be exclusive in this area or any other area but it is claiming to have real expertise and experience and a real network behind it and is challenging any of the other “contestants” here to demonstrate anything similar… The real question is whether these voices should be heard and you and your mates’ are making the assertion that they should not, for a bunch of truly specious reasons/arguments… The issue isn’t select but be inclusive, transparent etc.etc. all the things that the WSIS Declaration called for and that is currently being denied.
> 
> its problematic to believe some criteria though important, are difficult to apply and can be avoided - (be aware) this is ideology of 'club membership' (re gurstein's mail) in operation.
> [MG>] huh?
>  
> BTW, since  you folks could pull your criteria out of the air and have them suddenly and without discussion or consultation appear as defining criteria for CS participation what about my 3 criteria (or for that matter and of an endless stream of even more highly individual focused criteria meant to narrow the discussion and hand pick the participants… “All of those not born on odd numbered Tuesdays will by definition and fiat of the Central Committee no longer be recognized as Civil Society…
>  
> M
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Bill
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> ********************************************************************
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131226/f709d383/attachment.htm>