[governance] individuals

Wed Apr 26 15:48:20 EDT 2006

I must say that I'm not nearly as positive as Carlos or Avri who are making similar points...although the IGC may be "operating on the network model" i.e. using an e-list for communications (and pace Danny's most recent note)... I have seen very little evidence of THE CS-IGC acting like a "network" i.e. making active linkages with like minded "nodes", working towards inclusive consensus, actively seeking to extend the network particularly to fill in gaps and to broaden the network's reach. 

And further following Milton's admonition concerning the "practical" and "outcomes"; the result of this is that at least to date, the IGC seems for the most part concerned, as I said in a much earlier note, primarily with issues that have to do with ensuring that the Internet remains a venue through which an orderly marketplace may be maintained (i.e. spam, security, network neutrality) rather than with the broader issues raised by the on-rushing inequalities in part enabled by the Internet (certainly of broader interest to the full range of Civil Society) and as presented for example, by the submission of the Group of 77 (let alone having an interest in, dare I say the even more significant IMHO issues and opportunities presented by ICTs for local community based self-development). 

Again I think it should be said that those who wish to claim the mantle of THE CS-IGC also must accept responsibility for ensuring that the IGC operates in a way which is reflective of the modes of operation and "values" of CS, so it isn't sufficient to say to folks such as myself or others, well if you think it needs to be done then you should do it, since I have no interest personal or institutional in presenting myself as THE CS standard bearer in the IG area.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
Sent: April 26, 2006 2:59 PM
To: Gurstein, Michael
Cc: Bram Dov Abramson; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] individuals

On a very limited basis, we do operate on the network model. Limited 
because, although there are no direct barriers to entry in this net, 
there are de facto barriers or restrictions like: lack of specific 
interest on the subject (or assumption that an involved CS member who 
supposedly knows about the subject is representing us well, just because 
he/she/it is defending positions we seem to agree with); lack of 
resources to be present (in some cases, we need more than one to handle 
pressing issues and ensuing hundreds of messages and docs, not to speak 
of lack of travel money for face-to-face meetings); idiomatic barriers 
(the Southern hemisphere does not speak English or French etc), and so on.

As a result, this net ends up dominated by a relatively small group of 
regulars who are able to circumvent these and other barriers -- and most 
of them remain there almost by default because the CS constituencies who 
have any interest on the subject and cannot participate directly are 
somehow satisfied with (or at least accepting) what they are doing.

So, within this sea of imperfections and limits, we work as a network 
(the other meaning of an open caucus) and we try to be as transparent as 
possible (through our electronic list in English)...

--c.a.

Gurstein, Michael wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br

********************************************
* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux   *
* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
* com software livre e de código aberto,   *
* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
* Coletivo Digital.                        *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
********************************************

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