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

[David Cake]

On 25 Dec 2013, at 11:05 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 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…
>  
> 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…

	Well, we are talking largely administrative, not policy, positions - and I think it is fairly obvious that there are some shared concerns within civil society, such as ensuring adequate representation for CS. 
>  
> 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

	Well, some of us prefer to think of it as work productively rather than 'play nice'. I appreciate that there are some of us who do not think working productively with other stakeholder groups is a priority, but I can't see why they would want to apply for a position coordinating with other stakeholder groups. Or why we would want to select them for that role. 
	Perhaps you can suggest to us why we might want specifically to select representatives who are not able to work with other stakeholder groups?
> 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

	I would imagine some of those selected might take your characterisation of them as not having serious involvement with active CS groups as somewhat pejorative. Is there anyone in particular you think this applies to?

> 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

	Individuals who participate in both CS and government is disproportionately likely to come from smaller nations, where there are a smaller number of people with Internet policy and governance skills, so those with experience are more often called on to fill government delegations etc. So this would have a practical effect of excluding those from smaller nations disproportionately, which seems a very bad idea to me. 
	Not that it is restricted to smaller nations, of course. As Adam points out, larger nations often bring large delegations to the ITU etc, and civil society people are often included. 
	I can see the principle here - but it doesn't seem likely to actually help our effectiveness. 
> 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…
	
	Are we then expected to only appoint representatives for broader policy forums to have experience of all policy areas they might possibly be involved in discussing? And this is expected to be a better alternative to simply asking them to consult with colleagues?
	
> 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.

	Which, of course, cuts out many of the most experienced advocates in our networks, if they don't happen to have an appropriate gig at the time. Again, I can see the reasoning, but I don't see how it would enhance our effectiveness. 
> 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…

	We are mostly selecting criteria for process based positions, so yes. 

> So CS becomes completely pre-occupied with discussing (its own) positioning and processes in the larger IG area. 

	You've been a fairly enthusiastic participant in discussions about how civil society representatives should be selected yourself. 
	Cheers

		David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131227/b31a633d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131227/b31a633d/attachment.sig>