[governance] individuals

[Danny Butt]

On 24/04/2006, at 7:40 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Things could be different if you were to build a global,
> complex representative structure, but as long as this caucus is  
> meant to
> be the "think-tank" of that handful of active people in the field, all
> of us should be peers; and I think that we should not forget that the
> Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, has been up to now
> very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely active individuals.


So, for example, the 100million-plus Internet users in China aren't  
here because... they're not active? Or that they're not interested in  
the rights of users? Or civil society doesn't exist there? Or there  
are too many people for them to be lonely? Or they're not  
individuals?...

I'll be blunt with my opinion: if the IGC doesn't scale in capacity  
and diversity it won't be taken seriously. I think that assessment is  
in keeping with the annoyance expressed at the process of  
coordinating our IGF theme proposals. The "working methods" in place  
have not scaled, I don't see how they can be taken as being  
successful or not in need of significant change. Well, I can see that  
if the vision of civil society input into internet governance is  
30-40 people setting the agenda then things are fine. But I would  
cast people's mind back to the comments by the Indian delegation at  
the presentation of the WGIG report where the question of CS  
legitimacy and representativeness has already been raised.

 From my point of view those criticisms will best be addressed by a  
strategy of fostering openness and participation - especially by NGOs  
working in the field. After all, NGOs are staffed and run by  
individuals who have gathered resources to further particular issues.  
In the political process they become markers of the ongoing relevance  
of particular issues (e.g. it's not from an individual who'll change  
their mind next week), or in some cases a proxy for a group of people  
interested in those issues.

You can't write policy based on individuals. Well you can, when  
you're a small group of engineers and enthusiasts setting up a  
network. But to bring up the role of the individual in global policy  
participation (I mean process, not the idea of the individual in  
human rights) is pure ideology when so many of them are not here. We  
are talking about decisions that affect hundreds of millions of  
people! With a background in user experience testing, I've become  
very used to the idea that it's hard to know what the user is  
thinking without testing it. Because users behave surprisingly  
differently to oneself. I don't trust myself - or anyone on this list  
- to represent the rights of the individual user, whoever they are.  
Thus, my previous point about effective mechanisms for participation  
and accountability to our diverse constituency. "Over-organisation is  
counterproductive", it's true, but that statement also a common  
ideology among those who do well out of a laissez-faire setup and  
would prefer to not have to negotiate with different views.

I couldn't care less about being an individual in this process. What  
I care about are the issues: human rights, development, diversity,  
etc. I'd be ecstatic if I didn't have to spend my time working on  
them, if there were NGOs on board who could use their capacity to do  
a better job than I do, if the IGC didn't need to exist because the  
issues were always on the table. I don't spend my time here because I  
want to be a part of 30-40 smart and active people: I am looking for  
a productive platform where my contributions can make a difference -  
and where other people working on them can make a difference. The  
combination of individualism and wanting fewer seats at the table  
seems to me to be the largest barrier to this being the kind of  
platform I think CS should represent.

Regards

Danny

On 24/04/2006, at 7:43 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>
> Vittorio:
>
> I personally would be quite disturbed if the caucus took the road  
> of the organizational membership, similarly to the HR Caucus (which  
> however had some specific reasons for that, as pointed out before).  
> I would recommend that caucus members do not wear hats while  
> working here, and do not act as representatives of this or that  
> NGO, but as individual human beings.  I think that we should not  
> forget that the Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field,  
> has been up to now very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely  
> active individuals. I was already concerned by the idea of  
> organizational endorsements in our selection processes, as if names  
> put forward by organizations were for that very reason more  
> deserving of consideration. I would not be able to recognize myself  
> in this caucus any more, if it became practically dominated by a  
> few big NGOs.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang:
>
> I can only support Vittorio. Over-organization is counter- 
> productive, as you can see from the four years of ICANNs ALAC .  
> Vittorio, why you did not argue within ALAC when you chaired the  
> body as you do now?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
> -- 
> Danny Butt
> db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
> Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
> Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
> Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance