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

[parminder]

Hi All

Since I proposed the marginalised groups linkage/ representation 
criterion, I think I must defend it...

Apparently, it is being proposed that it is difficult to ascertain 
linkages with marginalised groups and causes . Some of the same people 
are very keen on 'being able to work with other stakeholders' as a 
rather more important as well as ascertainable criterion..

Such a position IMHO represents the core of what my organisation and 
many other groups see as problematic with a good amount of civil society 
currently engaged with IG... Firstly, it it patently wrong to say that 
it is more difficult to assess the nature of a civil group's or even 
individual's work and linkages with different causes and interest groups 
than it is to assess a person's likeability among other stakeholders 
(and of course, with 'other stakeholders' here we mostly mean big 
business and the technical community, also quite often on the roll of 
big business, which itself is a rather limited view of 'stakeholders'))  
. Secondly, it seems to valorise (or at least has the practical effect 
of doing so) the extent of relationship building with big business and 
some other groups close to big business over the representation of 
interests of marginalised groups and causes ...

First, about the criterion of representation of marginalised groups/ 
causes.... In fact, in most of civil society spaces that I am familiar 
with, it is indeed almost necessary to have (demonstratable) linkages 
with marginalised groups and causes. Such linkages can of course rather 
easily be demonstrated, if they exist... From the predominate nature of 
ones work, positions, pronouncements, etc, and also from the visible 
work/ activity linkages to other groups, grass-root communities, and so 
on.... I have no idea why would one consider this as difficult to 
demonstrate..

Next, about the criterion of 'being able to work with other stakeholders 
- first of all,  I would ask those who push this criterion as one of the 
most important one to tell us, what are their verifiable means of 
asserting/ using it. To me it appears as a subjective behavioural 
assessment. In a patently political process, political criteria have to 
be given much greater importance than subjective behavioural ones, which 
can easily be mis- applied.    Next, also please clarify which all 
stakeholders you consider as the ones that every potential nominee 
should be able to work with.

Pending the explanation, let me speculate a bit... I suspect, the 
stakeholders that are meant here - or generally, in relation to which 
this criterion gets applied - is business community and the technical 
community ( defined as being those directly engaged with or close to 1* 
group). Now, people will need to be blind to not see that the business 
community in IG spaces is the big global business. Or even much of  
technical community around also have close relationships with big 
business. For instance, excellent human beings that the involved persons 
may be,  I could never fathom why ISOC has to take their successive CEOs 
from the US telco industry, which, if you really look at it, is perhaps 
the biggest enemy of an 'open Internet' that ISOC professes!. I know by 
making such assertions I may be sliding into the category of those who 
could be considered as 'not being able to work with other stakeholders'. 
What kind of fellow raises questions about the head of the very apex 
organisation of the tech community! This is the 'chilling effect' that 
this criterion sets in, if applied loosely... Civil society must beware.

Lets get real! In the civil society that I move around in, being too 
friendly with a Microsoft, or Monsanto or Shell is not considered a 
virtue ... It is rather more likely to make you suspect... The main 
raison d'etre of civil society is to ask difficult questions, and ask 
them ceaselessly, from those in power - include big corporates, and 
those who run powerful tech organisations. Asking such questions is of 
course not going to make one popular among them. Dont people here see 
that by pushing such selection criterion right to the top, one is 
encouraging a wrong kind of civil society...

And why does being able to work with grassroots communities, groups 
organised around marginalised interests and causes, and well of course, 
in the global context, with developing country govs not considered as 
the ability to work with other stakeholders. (In an overwhelming 
majority of global governance spaces, NGOs have not had good working 
relationships with at least some developing country govs - trade, IT, 
climate change, development policy, health, education global governance 
reform,......). It is important to realise that many who can earn a lot 
of  points about being close to big business or IG tech community are 
likely to (although not , necessarily)  cut a very bad picture if they 
were to try and engage with these other groups that I mention here... So 
guys, lets open up our sights to look beyond an increasingly narrow 
global IG's privileged in-space.

( Vint Cerf can call government types at the ITU as guys with peanut 
sized brains, and recently reassert that he enjoyed the strong reception 
that his comments got - but he would still be chosen to head a global 
multistakeholder IG panel. On the other hand, I may be compromising my 
'workability with other stakeholders' even by reporting this fact from 
news reports in this manner!It is always about power isnt it...But isnt 
civil society the one that has to resist 'power'? )

Various kind of 'criteria for selection' denote what is valued by a 
group, which tends to set norms of defining the nature of a group, here 
of civil society involved in IG spaces.... I think anyone doing any kind 
of selection should specifically ask for details of how every applicant 
connects to issues and groups that are typically marginalised and 
under-represented... And while assessing 'ability of work with other 
stakeholders' be clear what exactly is meant - including what kind of 
stakeholders are being considered, and what is the meaning of being able 
to work with them.

parminder



On Tuesday 24 December 2013 07:58 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Guru गुरु <guru at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:guru at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/2013 07:52 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>> Hi Avri, I couldn't agree more. Plus, there are so many 
>>> underrepresented views in this space
>>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> I strongly agree with you that there are so many under represented 
>> views in this space.
>
> As do I
>
>> (Basically that the current 'CS' mostly represents a very small 
>> section of interests.)
>
> Particularly the most aggressive and persistent. Â Others give up and 
> fall silent et voila, and down and down we spiral into acrimony and 
> irrelevance, at least in some spaces.
>>
>>
>>> that I wonder if this really makes a solid selection criteria.
>>>
>>
>> However I could not understand this logic - Â since there are many 
>> views under represented let us ignore them? That would only reinforce 
>> existing hegemonies (which are very strong in the IG space).
>
> 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. Â 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?Â
>
> 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. Â Why not also say 
> nominees must also favor freedom? Â In contrast, the ability to work 
> well with other stakeholders, represent one’s SG professionally, and 
> reflect the range of views in one’s SG are a bit more empirically 
> assessable.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>>
>> On the contrary, I would think the basic legitimacy / unique aspect 
>> for CS participation is to ensure inclusion of marginalised / under 
>> represented groups.
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Am 23.12.13 15:15, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution us
>>>> against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to
>>>> stand-in for the diversity that is the  Civil  Society viewpoint. 
>>>> Â Many
>>>> time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous
>>>> with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'.
>>>>
>>>> I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also
>>>> not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel 
>>>> out the
>>>> views of others who also minority viewpoints. Â Even people with 
>>>> minority
>>>> views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent the
>>>> diversity of CS view adequately and need to be the sort of people who
>>>> can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and 
>>>> not at
>>>> cross-purposes.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>> On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>>>> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this 
>>>>> criterion. gp
>>>>>
>>>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>>>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> Â Â Â Â bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> Â Â Â Â http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow &Â Lecturer
> Â  Media Change &Â Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,Â
> Â  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), 
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> Â www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ********************************************************************
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140103/6ef133fc/attachment.htm>