[governance] individuals

Wed Apr 26 06:11:36 EDT 2006

Okay Milton, suppose that I (and a group of my friends and
acquaintances) decide that you and your friends and acquaintances are
interlopers in thrall to the great deepdishpizza god and that I and mine
are the one true followers of the CS faith and thus should be recognized
as THE CS-IGC.

What do we do then--
	a. arm wrestle for the designation, 
	b. wait for the powers that be to decide who are the one true
followers of the faith (based on their, of course, completely
disinterested criteria).
	c. leave it for the "marketplace of ideas" to determine--where
you folks speak the dominant language (and the various specialized "we
group defining" sub-languages/dialects), are well known acquaintances of
the powers that be, have access to budgets that allow you to show up as
and where necessary to be recognized as the true adherents etc.etc.--all
of this of course, taking us immediately back to Danny's question about,
what about everybody else who isn't showing up (for whatever reason and
certainly just for the moment)...e.g. the 100 million Chinese Internet
users, or whomever...
	d. other

And for extra points, explain why the responsibility of coming up with
an appropriately inclusive mechanism should not be on those who are
making claims of legitimacy (in part on the implied basis that the
process is already appropriately inclusive i.e that this is, as you
suggest, THE CS-IGC), even though a reasonable number of people
observing the process are insisting that it isn't.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: April 26, 2006 8:12 AM
To: Gurstein, Michael; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: gta at vancouvercommunity.net
Subject: Re: [governance] individuals

>>> "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

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