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

[michael gurstein]

Hi,

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 12:49 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to
Brazil meeting committees

 

 

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.

[MG>] Of course there are areas of CS interest overall including
representation but the question is representation for what. representation
means putting forward positions/interests/values but this criteria clearly
denies that, since positions necessarily come out of "individual civil
society organizations" (where else could they possibly come from)..

 

Rather this criteria is Seinfeld-ian. One can say anything one likes about
anything at all as long as one says nothing about anything .

 

And you are suggesting that there is no linkage/overlap/blurred boundaries
between the admin and the policy. I guess that you haven't been following
the MAG-IGF where there is a very clear and dare I say oppressive policy
control on the activities/outcomes of the IGF through the errr..
"administrative" structures and appointments in the MAG.

 

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?

 

[MG>] surely the issue is to represent "civil society" interests in their
variety and complexity and doing so will necessarily involve upsetting (not
playing nice) with other stakeholder groups who are similarly pursuing their
interests - with such interests necessarily, at least on occasion, coming
into conflict. 

 

And on what possible basis can this kind of matter be determined in advance.
I know that the NSA's Total Information Dominance program is designed to
predict aberrant behavior before it happens but fortunately for all of us,
Civil Libertarians and others have been working to ensure that we don't at
least for the moment, live in such a "Total Recall" world where people can
be accused and convicted on the basis of what they might do. but perhaps the
distinguished illumanti of the CS Central Committee have unique insight or
privileged access to this kind of information.

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?

 

[MG>] well let's call this what it is, the "LinkedIn Criteria"-Since as per
Criteria one and two anyone with any serious engagement with a CS
organization that actually stands for something i.e. has some serious
interests that it feels necessary to actively pursue is automatically
eliminated, then what precisely will the remainder be communicating about.
not issues of significant interest to groups within civil society (unless
they have some sort of perverse passion for whether CS has a 3 minute or a 6
minute speaking slot at some meeting or other) rather the communication will
be of the form that continuously burdens my inbox from LinkedIn. notices of
meeting I have no interest in attending, notices of papers I have no time to
read, idle chit chat on subjects of only the mildest passing concern-does
the LinkedIn connection begin to ring a bell. Certainly nothing wrong with
it, but in a real CS engaged environment this criteria would be of only very
secondary significance because what it is pointing to would be completely
taken for granted and highly highly noticeable if it were to be absent.



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. 

 

[MG>] I'll be very interested in an empirical test  of your hypothesis here.
My strong guess based on experience is that it is the larger more "engaged"
delegations/countries which have the largest coteries including CS folks
because they have the budgets (to pay for travel etc.) and they have the
specific interests in ensuring that they have sympathetic voices "on other
side" i.e. in CS (noting that in most instances of significant policy
matters globally CS is in fact "on the other side" because they are pursuing
real issues on behalf of a real civil society and even if indirectly the
well-being of all of us. the smaller countries don't have budgets for their
own staff let alone CS folks.

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?

 

[MG>] shouldn't people be expected to know something of what they are
talking?      



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. 

 

[MG>] you somehow are making a linkage between "most experienced" and
"advocates", again something worth an empirical examination.. It could just
as easily be that folks who have been around a long time who don't have
linkages into larger networks are simply acting in their own interests,
whatever the depth of their "experience" and one way to control for that is
to ensure a degree of accountability which comes from at least ensuring that
there are manifest links to a network outside of the immediate circle of
purportedly  "experienced advocates".



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. 

[MG>] and that says it all. surely CS is about something more than process.
something other than another Seinfeld sitcom. are there no real issues of CS
concern in the area of Internet Governance. Well as I've been repeatedly
pointing out the Community Informatics community thinks so
<http://cirn.wikispaces.com/An+Internet+for+the+Common+Good+-+Engagement%2C+
Empowerment%2C+and+Justice+for+All>  and is looking for the opportunity to
raise these issues in the appropriate policy venues. all of this humbuggery
around criteria and mickey mouse ad hominem's is precisely designed to deny
that opportunity.



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.

 

 [MG>] precisely to ensure that the farce that is currently being played
wouldn't be allowed to happen, but there you go..

 

Best,

 

M

            Cheers

 

                        David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131227/0ed7bc02/attachment.htm>