[bestbits] Re: [discuss] Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched

[parminder]

On Friday 17 January 2014 07:30 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> I fully agree that there should be diversity of perspectives/concerns 
> present in the SC, and that the current CS representatives do not 
> formally represent all these. However, only 5 people (CS reps in the 
> SC) - whoever they would be (me, you or anyone else) - can't possibly 
> formally represent the full diversity of the CS; we would need dozens 
> of representatives. What is important is that they care about 
> diversity of perspectives/concerns and make sure to bring these into 
> SC discussions at all points. Your detailed input about the 
> Declaration are much appreciated and this is a good example of what 
> should be seriously taken into consideration also, and there are many 
> other relevant documents and concerns as well (as you rightly 
> mentioned marginalised group, persons with disabilities, and others).
>
> So let's make sure that the 5 CS reps. pick up the diversity from 1Net 
> list and other CS discussion fora, and bring this diversity to the SC 
> table. I will do my best, and I am sure the others will as well.
>

Vlada

You cannot in this manner post facto technical-ize an essentially 
political issue... And if indeed everything is so simple why did not the 
repsof the 4 groups in the CS CC just not allow the Community 
Informatics Network (CIN) rep also be a part of the selection panel? Do 
you think that it is a fake group...

Denying political space and role to different groups, and the 
corresponding claims of those so denied, are both highly political 
acts... And they are best treated as such... It is not quite right that 
those who participate actively in such political acts, and obtain 
political roles (quite a legitimate thing to do), then hold forth on how 
people should not aspire for such spaces/positions... No personal 
offence implied, but lets not side step serious issues. Some claims may 
be weightier than others, and that is fine. Some kind of sorting out 
would need to be done as part of a political process.  One can discuss 
that. It is entirely possible that Diplo Foundation and its alumuni 
brings better and more effective (both criteria being important) 
representation of what is normally considered civil society interests 
than the Community Informatics Network (CIN) does. It is also entirely 
possible that NCUC deals with issues more salient to general people 
(civil society) than does CIN. All of this is quite possible. But such 
should be the bases, or not, for some group being in there and other not 
being there. All this is entirely political, as IG is political. Those 
who dont think it is political, can as well step out of the space and 
let those who consider it is political represent them...

The primary purpose of my comment is just to speak out against 
technicalizing issues of representation. Can you say with confidence 
that you and other members of the concerned committee or whatever will, 
say, push the perspectives in the CI's Internet declaration as you would 
the position i have heard you articulate. Or others in these committees 
will do so vis a vis the positions I have seen them so strongly 
advocate, and also strategize so actively around. Lets be real. We need 
diversity in the people who represent and not just the views that they 
claim they will pick up and push with equal force..

Also, is it not interesting that reps of four CS groups who are a part 
of the selection process selected 5 persons for the 1Net committee, all 
of which belong to the management structures of these four CS groups.. 
Indeed, quite a diversity seeking exercise! Could they not find one 
person from outside, from the whole universe of civil society! Is this 
not a high degree of insularity. And now these homilies, on being good 
and nice people...

Before advice pours in to take such issues off this list, I must add 
that civil society is always about a bit of a chaos.... Les our friends 
from outside civil society learn the culture.

regards , parminder


> Best,
>
> Vlada
>
> PS. As I mentioned several times: all these are only my personal 
> opinions, not on behalf of CS members in SC or anyone else. I am not a 
> spoke-person, I am just currently the loudest one :)
>
> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 16 January 2014 00:41
> *To:* 'Vladimir Radunovic'
> *Cc:* discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Selection RE: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR 
> meeting site launched
>
> Vlada,
>
> Thank you for your comments and let me reply inline...
>
> *From:*Vladimir Radunovic [mailto:vladar at diplomacy.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:50 AM
> *To:* 'michael gurstein'
> *Cc:* discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> *Subject:* Selection RE: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR 
> meeting site launched
>
> Michael,
>
> I have missed that question with a purpose - there have been lots of 
> discussions on that, and in this thread I wanted to raise some other 
> issues for discussion as well.
>
> */[MG>] yes, there has been some discussion on the issues that I've 
> raised but so far no one from the 1net Steering Committee, 1net, the 
> groups self-selecting for the Steering Committee, or the groups 
> self-nominating for the self-selecting groups for the Nominating 
> Committee have provided any rationale or argument in support of what I 
> think is an unsupportable position.../*
>
> I owe you my views on the issue of SC legitimacy as well, nevertheless:
>
> While I am not acquainted with the details of the selection process, I 
> am aware from discussions that it was not perfect.
>
> */[MG>] If you aren't aware of the selection process, that suggests 
> that there may not have been one... basically it was a few mates 
> sitting in a circle and saying who from our circle shall we get to 
> front this one/*
>
> *//*
>
> Yet I do find it a solid base for improvements for future occasions, 
> as for once civil society managed to come up with something to further 
> work on.
>
> */[MG>] no, a self-selected group purporting to represent Civil 
> Society but in fact only representing primarily themselves came up 
> with something again primarily to serve themselves/*
>
> *//*
>
> Selecting the civil society representatives is a complex issue, I am 
> aware, as one can't use classic "representational democracy" model --
>
> */[MG>] agree/*
>
> *//*
>
> instead, we need to focus on searching for persons with and 
> credibility, experience, skills and knowledge that hopefully have 
> strong support among the CS groups =
>
> */[MG>] and who apart from these self-selected groups determined that 
> this particular group of individuals had the degree of /*integrity and 
> credibility, experience, skills and knowledge */and only they had the 
> required characteristics... certainly being self-selected from the 
> self-selected CS groups they had strong support but since the circle 
> was closed it is hard to accept or know whether they had strong 
> support from anyone else or whether anyone else could have been found 
> who had more support or better filled the criteria/*
>
> *//*
>
>  those persons we believe will fairly represent diversity of views 
> that exist in CS.
>
> */[MG>] what possible basis do you have for that belief... I see no 
> participation from Indigenous Peoples, people with Disabilities, poor 
> people's organizations, actual Internet users (and non-users) as 
> opposed to those talking about the use of the Internet by 
> others---those are the people of whom CS overwhelming consists and I 
> see no basis to believe that the current self-appointed group in any 
> way "represents" their views among other in the "diversity that exist 
> in CS".../*
>
> *//*
>
> My confidence in this selection process came from my confidence in the 
> nominating committee members and their integrity and credibility.
>
> */[MG>] I'm delighted that you have confidence in those who chose you 
> and in the self-selected group of which your own organization is an 
> active member... and the other of those organizations who equally 
> chose their own members for these positions, but so far you have given 
> no arguments why anyone else beyond that circle should share your 
> confidence and in the absence of any reasonable arguments you have 
> further undermined any reason for anyone beyond your narrow circle(s) 
> to accept this/*
>
> *//*
>
> If they made mistakes as you say, I believe that - and doom me for 
> that or call me naive - it was not with mal intention and it is 
> something they and all of us can work on in future to improve. In all 
> the circumstances I do think that the SC is legitimate, though 
> admitting the selection process needs improvements. With all this, I 
> do hope that also you believe in my personal integrity and credibility 
> to represent you and diversity of CS views in the SC; if not, I will 
> give my best to show that you should - and please help me do that by 
> both criticizing and supporting my takes.
>
> */[MG>] Vlada, I don't know you directly and thus I can have no 
> opinion on your integrity etc./*
>
> *//*
>
> */But let me be quite direct.../*
>
> *//*
>
> */The Community Informatics community recently and in the context of 
> the Brazil meeting published a /**/Declaration/* 
> <http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/1099/1065>*/. That 
> Declaration has now been signed on to by dozens of organizations 
> globally including the Indigenous ICT Task Force, Telecommunities 
> Canada, the First Mile Institute (New Mexico), Women be Free (Benin), 
> the global P2P Foundation, the International Alliance on Information 
> for All, the Open Technology Institute (USA), the RCM Participatory 
> Foundation (Italy) and over 100 individuals including the Founding 
> Director of Siyafunda (South Africa), the head of the Global Community 
> Network Initiative (Austria), the UNESCO Chair at the University of 
> Strasbourg, a leading official of the Broadband Commission, and a very 
> very broad band of grassroots ICT activists, academics and just plain 
> users from all parts of the world. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */However, from a fairly close observation not one of those currently 
> active in IG CS and certainly none of those who have been currently 
> nominated for positions representing either civil society or academia 
> have chosen to endorse this Declaration./*
>
> *//*
>
> */Of course, you and your colleagues in these positions can choose to 
> endorse whatever you like but since none of you have chosen to endorse 
> the Declaration of the Community Informatics community don't purport 
> to say that you are fully representative of civil society of which the 
> CI community is most definitely a part (unless you and your colleagues 
> choose a definition where only those who you folks designate as CS can 
> in fact be CS) or that you represent the diversity of CS positions. 
> That is totally and manifestly incorrect./*
>
> *//*
>
> */The Declaration points to issues and norms that we feel need to be 
> expressed in the context of the Brazil meeting and from what I have 
> seen I have absolutely no confidence that unless we are given an 
> opportunity to be represented at all levels in the planning of the 
> event that many of those issues will not in fact be presented for 
> discussion and the voices of those whose lived reality underlie those 
> issues will have no opportunity to be heard./*
>
> *//*
>
> */I must say further that I find this to be particularly outrageous 
> since the Declaration's concerns for the distributional effects of the 
> Internet so closely mirror the actions of President Rousseff and her 
> party in Brazil having undertaken social and distributional programs 
> which have moved 10s of millions of her fellow citizens out of 
> poverty. The concerns of the Community Informatics community in 
> ensuring that the Internet is an element in similarly ensuring the 
> widest possible distribution of economic benefits and similarly in 
> advocating measures to overcome any inequalities that might be arising 
> as a result of the differential distribution of benefits arising from 
> the transformations that the Internet is bringing about need to be 
> heard as part of the upcoming meeting. And I have absolutely no 
> confidence or reason to have confidence that any of those currently 
> representing "civil society" will in fact present those concerns among 
> others./*
>
> *//*
>
> */Vlada, I acknowledge and have considerable respect for the 
> individuals and organizations and for the concerns that they represent 
> of which apparently you are now the spokesperson.  I wonder what might 
> be the motivation to not accord my colleagues and I and the concerns 
> that we are presenting the same degree of acknowledgement and respect./*
>
> *//*
>
> */Mike/*
>
> Best!
>
> Vlada
>
> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 15 January 2014 17:04
> *To:* 'Vladimir Radunovic'; discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site 
> launched
>
> Vlada,
>
> It seems to me that you have missed the first and most significant 
> question which needs to be asked i.e. on what basis do you derive the 
> legitimacy to undertake any of the tasks as indicated in your 
> subsequent questions.
>
> Contra Milton, you cannot simply pull this legitimacy and authority to 
> act out of the air, assume it by some form of divine right, seize it 
> through the de facto occupancy of some type of electronic space or 
> other similarly illegitimate contrivance.
>
> Your legitimacy has in this instance, to come from the identification 
> of a constituency who, through a set of agreed upon procedures have 
> granted you that legitimacy to act on their behalf so long as your 
> actions are consistent with those procedures. In this case, you (or 
> rather your nominators) have misidentified your constituency (as being 
> representative of all of CS as a stakeholder group), failed to 
> identify a set of appropriate procedures on the basis of which your 
> legitimacy could be granted (appropriately transparent and accountable 
> selection procedures for your individual nominations) and only 
> function on the basis of an external body (1net) having accorded you 
> legitimacy even though they themselves quite evidently lack any form 
> of  legitimacy as per the above ...
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*discuss-bounces at 1net.org 
> <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>[mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Vladimir Radunovic
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:07 PM
> *To:* discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> *Subject:* [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> ahead of the first (and constitutive) meeting of the 1Net Steering 
> committee in the following days, and thinking about the substantial 
> questions related to 1Net (many been discussed already on this list), 
> please share your views on the following:
>
> 1.How do you see the role and potentials of 1Net? What should be its 
> task in a wider IG context?
>
> (Taking into account the discussed views that it might have been 
> started with particular intentions and following particular interests, 
> but now providing (or hoping) that 1Net would be able to resist these 
> and gradually establish its legitimacy in the wider community)
>
> 2.What should be the role of 1Net towards major IG fora - IGF, ICANN, 
> ITU, and other?
>
> 3.What relation should 1Net have with the Brazil meeting?
>
> The Brazilian organisers suggested in a press release (and as Anja 
> clarified: 1Net has not been consulted on nor has decided on any of 
> these, so we can only understand this as suggestions) several roles 
> for 1Net, including the "partnership" in organising the Brazil 
> event... Should 1Net be a partner, and if so how should it contribute 
> to Brazil meeting (and how it should not)?
>
> I am sure all the members of the Steering Committee would appreciate 
> variety of views on these.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Best,
>
> Vlada
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140118/f2911c7a/attachment.htm>