[governance] individuals

[Milton Mueller]

>>> "Gurstein, Michael" <gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU> 04/25/06 10:06 PM >>>
>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"...

It is both. At the moment, those two categories are, as a matter of fact and necessity, indistinguishable. This whole thing runs on donated time and donated everything else. That means that those who step forward persistently and credibly in this small CS community inevitably gain the status to assume specific roles that the institution's designers set aside for "civil society." 

At this juncture, therefore, the most "representational" thing we can do is to make participation as easy amd open as possible for those who care enough about this venue to want to affect it. We achieve a foothold in the UN system, encourage others to join us, and grow and build. 

If you think that's imperfect, you're right. Just tell me what's a better institutional mechanism. A top-down structure imposed on us by governments? No thanks. Assigning people more influence/votes based on how many members they claim to have in their organization? No thanks. What, then?

Let me take your own example of the Telecenters, Michael, to explain my perspective. You mention the GTA and that it constitutes a "fairly significant number of people." So the first question is, where are these people? You suggest an answer:

>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).

And what is your proposed mechanism for achieving this involvement, this consultation?

>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

I have a very practical frame of mind, and I read your statement above as calling for work to be done. Outreach is work. Time-consuming, expensive (travel, publicity) work. My question, being a practical sort of person, is who is going to do this work? There are two possible  interpretations of your comment. One is that you are volunteering to do that work, in which case I find it a welcome comment. The other is that you are not willing to do it, but you expect others in this group to do it. As you can understand, that comment is not only unwelcome, but part of what seems to me a pointless conversation. 

The stakes surrounding the answer to this question are raised by your clear implication that you will question the legitimacy of this caucus if that work isn't done. So who should do it?  






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