[governance] individuals

Tue Apr 25 22:06:20 EDT 2006

Isn't the original issue that Danny raised, whether this group is THE
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus or is it "30-40 self-selected
"experts" interested in discussing internet governance at a global
level"...

Certainly, no one has any objections or queries concerning the latter,
but since this group has presented itself, among others, to the
organizers of the IGF as the former (and one has the feeling that the
folks in the IGF may for their own purposes be only too pleased to
accept that self-definition) then one must assume that there are some
responsibilities that are attendant on that designation including not
simply being the latter.

As an example, and as for the significance of some of those
responsibilities, I certainly don't claim to "represent" the Global
Telecentre Alliance (GTA) but also I could if appropriate (and as I've
been asked to do) pass along information concerning Internet Governance
issues through the various tiers of the various internetworked
organizations that form the GTA and probably get a pretty good sense of
what some at least of the folks working in Internet issues on the ground
in "developmental" contexts are thinking about some of the upcoming
issues--and if we are discussing a network of networks inclusive of say
around 10,000 telecenters with say, 1000 people associated in some way
with each of these then we may be talking about a fairly significant
number of people, certainly enough under some circumstances for some
politicians to pay serious attention.

Certainly it is the case that the folks I'm in touch with would have
little direct interest in some of the issues, passing interest in some,
and a direct and even passionate interest in others (and at this point
it would be difficult for me to determine which would be which...

And while these folks may not have an interest in participating directly
or even paying much attention to most of the IGF discussions/issues, at
some point they may most usefully be consulted (as for example, when
issues of implementation on the ground might be discussed or when some
sort of "political" influence might be useful in promoting one or
another side of an argument).  So while recognizing that the linkages
both ways might not be of continuous significance, having them available
if and when the need arises is not only desirable it seems to me to be
under any possible set of circumstances, a necessity if CS is to be
taken seriously at all in forums such as the IGF.

What I also know, is that proceeding to present oneself as THE CS-IGC in
the absence of including the opportunity for real participation by those
folks and the others working in Civil Society and ICTs on the ground as
and where they might feel it useful/necessary is an act of significant
misrepresentation.

So, if, as I think would be broadly desirable, the IGC would like to
remain known as the IGC rather than simply Bill, Wolfgang, Vittorio,
Avri, Janette, Milton and friends then there are certain prices to be
paid which includes a serious attempt at outreach and a broad strategy
of inclusion whether or not that outreach or inclusion has any short
term or immediate significance in terms of numbers of participants on
the email list!  That the effort is being made, the channels being
created and left open and the welcome being seriously and honestly made
available may for all intents and purposes be sufficient if or until
issues arise when such channels and welcomes may mean something of
significant value for all concerned.  

In the absence of these initiatives, one can expect a lot more and
rather more effective arguments parallel to those of the Indian
Ambassador, and quite honestly, I would question the motives of any of
those countries/ambassadors who weren't themselves asking precisely
those questions.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: April 25, 2006 8:52 PM
To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Internet Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] individuals

Rather than finding a way to weigh NGOs/individuals, I'd rather
articulate a set of principles by which we can measure whether their
contributions benefit the public interest. In other words, can we
measure the merit of the contributions rather than the size and
legitimacy of the contribitor?

          -- Bret

-----Original Message-----
I have occasionally looked at NGO's and tried to put their particpation
into perspective.  one of the questions I keep running into is how to
distinguish between the degrees of NGO (1 person,  5, 100, 1000 people
or an NGO of NGOs).  And more then distinguishing, how does one give
appropriate weight to the ideas of one vis a vis the other.  Or are all
NGOs equal?  and how do universities, or the individuals at universities
fit in?

Going a step further, if there isn't a way to discriminate between the
NGO of many and the NGO of few, then on what basis can one exclude
Individuals, each of whom could fill papers and become an NGO (albeit
easier in some countries then in others). -----Original Message-----

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