[governance] individuals

[Gurstein, Michael]

Bram and others,

To get a bit theoretical here, I think there are 3 separate models at
play...
	1. the "representational" model which is inherently
centralizing, and top down i.e. top-down institutions set up rules that
require others to similarly produce top-down "representatives" (however
they are selected) to "speak on behalf" of others i.e. constituencies. 

	2. the "market" model which is inherently competitive and
individualistic i.e. where individuals (or collectivities operating as
pseudo individuals) compete in some sort of marketplace for some sort of
set of rewards (in this case influence on global public policy) and
where "success" in this marketplace depends on access to unequally
distributed resources -- e.g. time, travel money, the appropriate
language for discourse, "air time", or as folks here seem to be
suggesting the inherent value/significance of the ideas or expertise of
individuals.

	3. the "network" model which is I think the appropriate one here
as it allows for (and even enables) cooperation/collaboration/coalition
building and is in itself neutral as to whether the participating
elements (nodes) are individuals or institutions or collectivities of
some other variety...

It seems to me that CS must necessarily operate by means of the
"network" model as a collectivity of links and nodes sharing some
minimal set of common positions and working as the need arises towards
some common goals.

The problem as I see it is that for whatever reason, CS in this instance
is operating on the basis of the second (market) model where "access to
influence" i.e. participation in the IGF/designation as THE CS-IGC is a
direct product of one's access to the above mentioned resources (time,
travel money, ideas etc.).  In fact IMHO CS should necessarily be
operating on the basis of the third model since this is the means by
which a true measure of inclusion and broad based consensus building can
be achieved, particularly because as everyone apparently agrees, the
first (representational model) is too expensive and cumbersome to work
in this context.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bram Dov
Abramson
Sent: April 26, 2006 4:48 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] individuals


Michael Gurstein writes:
>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

To be an effective representative, though, is surely at least in part to
understand clearly what the GTA's interests are, and to advocate on
behalf of them?

>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.

Well, to state the obvious, one way in which people delegate authority
is by electing representatives.  Perhaps this was addressed in one of
those e-mails I deleted?

But in case not.  Imagine if some definition was agreed upon for "civil
society organisation"; if any such CSO could submit to the IGF an
any-length list of voters; if any voter could appear on, I don't know,
zero to two voters' lists; if an election was so convened to represent
civil society.

The process itself is no doubt clunky and subject to streamlining and
tamper-proofing and so forth -- you'd want rules in place that avoided
CSOs which simply signed people up in order to give them a vote (or
would you?), and there are lots of ways to do that, too -- but that's
hardly the point, I think.

>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!

Elections are not necessarily antithetical to reasoned thought from a
disinterested or thoughtful standpoint, I would add.  That's why
parliaments have ministries in which live civil servants who do the
grunt work.  And why organisations often have secretariats.  Elections,
on the one hand; a staff, on the other.  I suspect I'm treading heavily
into ICANN territory here -- but, as an non-initiate: why not?

cheers
Bram

_______________________________________________
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