[bestbits] [governance] On the legitimacy of civil-society-only meetings, e.g. ISF (was Re: APrIGF Macao...)

[Norbert Bollow]

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:57:01 +0000
"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote,
in response to a posting from me:

> >I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its
> >original context,
> Ok, no response is needed from me then because the context is
> important.

Context is always important. However your posting was not clear on
whether you meant your pointed question *only* in reference to the
specific context of the previous discussion, or more generally. And
this still hasn't been clarified.

Therefore, I'd like to ask directly, in relation to the fact that you
posted, “If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
importance of a multistakeholder model 
http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?”:

Do you view this point about the WEF as being applicable only in
reference to "workshops" in IGF / regional IGF contexts, or more
broadly?

And specifically, do you see a civil-society-only stand-alone forum
such as the proposed Internet Social Forum as unquestionably
legitimate, or do you see that point about the WEF as being relevant
to questioning legitimacy of the Internet Social Forum?

>> In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
>> meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
>> build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
>> oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
>> businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the
>> desire of governments to fund themselves through taxes.
> 
> I hope you do not take offence but an analogy is not an argument.

Of course it isn't. But if it should happen that someone expresses
doubts about that analogy being a quite appropriate one, I will be
happy to defend my view with arguments.

Greetings,
Norbert