[governance] individuals

Tue Apr 25 04:36:30 EDT 2006

Hi all,

I couldn't agree more with Danny on this issue, specially when it  
comes to transparency and accountability matters. I would also add a  
very important point: pushing for individuals rather than for  
collective positions (coming from structured or loose coalitions this  
doesn't matter) works towards a vision of CS which is only allowed to  
bring its expertise, i.e. CS viewed as a (fresh and cheap) bunch of  
consultants. I'm not saying that CS actors should be seen as  
'representative', we all know that this is not the reality (and part  
of us even think this is not desirable from a democratic point of  
view). Legitimacy of CS actors maximal participation is multiplefold,  
but CS actors cannot derive their legitimacy from any  
'representativeness'.

As a matter of fact, the HR Caucus has also sent its 3 candidates to  
the MAG directly to the IGF secretariat (as we informed this list),  
but we have found important to accompany this nomination with  
comments on the MAG. I personally find amazing that CS groups has  
rushed into the candidate nomination process, without questioning  
anything of the MAG definition (very fuzzy, BTW) in its announcement  
by the IGF secretariat. CS actors who were in favor, during the  
February consultations, of a very light bureau/programme committee/ 
steering committee/MAG should at least have naturally questioned this  
final choice. I some of you did send comments on this to the IGF, I'd  
be interested in reading them, since I don't know if this will be put  
on line on the IGF website.
  I'll send the HR caucus comments to the IGF secretariat  in a next  
message to this list. I wanted to wait until I make a translation of  
it into French, but unfortunately I've found no time since April 18  
for that.

Best,
Meryem

Le 25 avr. 06 à 04:31, Danny Butt a écrit :

>
>
> 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

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