[governance] individuals

Tue Apr 25 06:17:57 EDT 2006

Danny Butt ha scritto:
> 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. 

I agree with you, especially about the need for working methods that can 
be more transparent and inclusive, and can spare us criticism by the 
Indian delegation. At the same time, I think that structure follows 
reality, and not the opposite.

I would be absolutely happy if we started to have 100, 1000, 10000 
individuals (either in personal capacity, or representing NGOs - doesn't 
make a difference to this point) willing to actively contribute. Reality 
is, we only get 30-40, and so we should create a structure that works 
fine for that, while being ready to scale up if the group starts to 
grow, and ensuring that no capture can happen, and that the initial 
group cannot prevent others from joining.

> 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.

And on this I disagree; or, at least, it depends on the issue. For 
example, if you take development issues, then I'm sure that most people 
active on them will do so through a NGO. On the other hand, if you take 
spam, I'm sure that most people active on the issue do so as individuals 
(and often, even when supporting rights-oriented, civil society 
positions, do so through the private sector).

Now one could say that all these engineers working on spam and 
advocating user rights should go away and leave that activity to the 
"professionals" finally coming from the NGOs, but I'm sure that such a 
position wouldn't pass the "giggle test". Nor I don't think anyone is 
really thinking that.

> 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!

Sure, but then, in which sense a NGO that involves 10 or 1000 people is 
more "representative" of those millions people than individual 
activists? By definition, civil society groups don't represent people - 
that is what governments do, at least those who get elected after huge, 
costly and well defined democratic processes. Civil society groups 
advocate ideas that many people have, which is a very different thing. 
You can't weigh civil society, you can only listen to it because it says 
smart things and also puts them in practice.

> 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.

Uhm, I'm sure you're thinking at someone else here, right?

> 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 -  

That's my aim as well. That's why I am overly sensitive to this matter: 
I don't want to be told again "sorry, you can't participate because 
you're not a member of an NGO", as for part of the Summit. I'm not doing 
this as a job, I'm doing this for passion in my spare time. I respect 
those people who do it as a job (also because I'm sure that they do it 
firstly for passion, and only secondly because it's their job) but I 
don't want to remain a second class citizen of the caucus.

So I think that this caucus must be very clear on whether it wants to be 
the participation venue for NGOs, or the venue both for NGOs and for us 
weird people from the "Internet community". I'd love to see people such 
as, say, Karl Auerbach, or some of the free software / free content / 
hacktivism bunch, active in our group; without that kind of people, I 
think that this caucus will only be able to supply a very partial and 
incomplete view of the "non-private non-governmental" sector out there 
on the net.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance