[governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF

[Parminder]

Vittorio,

 

Thanks for starting this subject line which I think is important. 

 

> > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any

> > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international

> > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that

> > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we

> > simply lack legitimacy to do so.

> 

> I agree with you on this.

 

I will request further clarification of the implications of this new line of
argument which is being advanced. First of all, it is obvious that no one is
suggesting and/or offering any 

 

> > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > >
policy processes

 

to CS, and so I am unable to understand what is it that Jeanette and you are
referring to here. I asked Jeanette specifically, but she never came back. 

 

Do you NOT want CS to be part of any policy structure whatsoever, because
the question of whom and how do we represent will come up everywhere? I can
theoretically understand that position since I know people who hold such a
view, but I haven't associated this position with most IGC members,
especially the more active ones. They have actively been involved in policy
processes in the last few years, influencing it in many ways. What has
happened now, suddenly? Why did they all accept the membership of WGIG, for
instance? I know that many proposals for an IGF kind of forum were made
which had various kinds of decisions/ recommendation powers for it (One such
proposal was made you also, Vittorio). Why did they make all inputs into
WSIS processes, which was an exercise of political power on behalf of CS? On
whose behalf, and with what legitimacy, was all that power/influence
exercised? Do they have absolute faith that they were doing it in, and seen
by others in, strictly their individual capacity? And what does individual
capacity really mean in structures like the WGIG and IGF MAG where the
composition is multistakeholder by quota, and in WSIS where there are only
that many CS speaking slots.

 

I will like to know what has changed now? It is that at that time there was
this convenience of thinking that all CS thought alike, so power could be
exercised in various ways, because the objectives were common and
necessarily good for all... Is it that the IG CS structures cannot come to
terms that there are people with different interests and worldviews, and we
may need to discuss things internally a lot, and try to inch forward through
labored consensus...(Governments, with very different perspectives do it all
the time. That's politics.)

 

How is it that while till now CS always seem to have called for a legitimate
share in policy structures - which means a share in power structures -
though understanding that complex issues of what can and cannot be
legitimate arenas of CS involvement, and complexities of legitimizing
representation, is a complex set of issues, and progress can only be made on
this incrementally, through various innovations. We went through the whole
WSIS phase with this belief, and CS works outside IS arena dealing with
these complexities, with good overall effectiveness. But they do not give up
their ideals, objectives and therefore the necessary politics because the
means and structures of their activity are less than perfect.

 

Why are we now calling for an empty shell IGF and further, even an empty
shell IGC, ceasing all substantive outputs, and all politics. This new
prescription of CS distrusting itself on how will it exercise power (we
didn't distrust ourselves all this while)and spending time on perfecting
empty processes (like kids cant be given real things to play with) in the
IGF MAG and IGC itself is strange.... 

 

I will like to see what other stakeholders will say to this... other than be
thoroughly amused. But they will be happy and feel justified. That's exactly
what they said about CS all the while in resisting multistakeholder
processes with CS representation. 

 

I recognize the need to perfect processes, and the nature of legitimacy as
well as effectiveness of CS processes is an ongoing issue - of discussion,
of research and of practice - worldwide. But no one in the CS ever gave this
suggestion that lets cease our substantive objectives, and our politics,
till we perfect our processes (which, given the intrinsic nature of the CS
will be never)

 

I must also make this observation - hoping everyone takes it as a point of
necessary argument and not directed against anyone - that one needs to
ponder on who is that can afford to cease politics... It is that who is
satisfied with the status quo. One who wants change - more pressingly that
one wants it - cant afford to suspend politics just for process perfection.
It is an easy thing to see. And I remember your comment, Vittorio, in the
.xxx debate that no position in politics is really neutral. Neither then is
the position of suspending politics. 

 

(In light the above, wonder what you mean by ">Perhaps our future > role
should just be that of substance-neutral )"

 

We who are in these spaces just for seeking structural changes in favours of
the disadvantaged people are not going to agree to suspend politics. That's
our main job here...

 

About the present effectiveness of the IGC, we all have our concerns and
hopes.Jeremy listed all those things which were discussed/ adopted here
first and then taken up at by the IGF. we are doing fine on adopting common
positions. We set up a four part agenda for the IGF and we are having
workshops on all the four. We have an IGC sponsored and conducted workshop
for the first tie at the IGC, and we expect to be able to raise the level of
this workshop on 'IGF mandate' to become an annual feature. There are many
other things we can quote..

 

So for those - Jeanette, Wolfgang and Vittorio, in recent emails - who are
asking us to distrust our own involvement with power (a new suggestion I
must say in light our strong flirtations with it during WSIS) and seek
suspension of politics in order to perfect the processes for some future
use, I must also tell that we may be killing (I know I am repeating it from
an earlier email) an important global governance innovation which provides a
important role for civil society, which we won after some struggle (also due
to some external conditions). By abdicating at this moment, do we think the
processes will wait for us to take up positions of influence in them. The
cast for the IGF is being set now, and we need to see what gains can be
wrested NOW, and not wait till the structures are set and we handed our
portion. If we need to carve out positions of influence for CS we need to
work now. 

 

And on whose behalf would we take the decision to suspend politics and not
represent any substantive views.there is some kind of de facto
representation that IGC has for the wider global CS which would trust that
we keep some general CS perspectives and interests in mind - carving
positions of substantive influence for the CS constituency is definitely one
of them. As I/ we trust similarly CS actors involved in other arenas which
affect us, but for which we may not have time/specialization, like WIPO,
environment, peace and disarmament, etc.

 

I know we have some deep differences in the IGC, but these can only be
overcome by open discussion.. That's why I took the cue form your email
about what 'threatens the internet community' and sought an open and frank
discussion on it.. Equally people should seek explanations of what may
happen if we do too close an involvement with some governments and how it
impacts short and long term CS interests.. Abdication, I repeat, will itself
be a political move. And I don't agree to it.

 

Parminder 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]

> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:39 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann

> Cc: Parminder

> Subject: [governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF

> 

> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:

> > Hi,

> > at this state of things I would argue very much against any formal

> > decision making authority for the MAG. We are still in a state of

> > experimenting with multi-stakeholder processes. For many governments it

> > is not easy to deal with a membership so heterogeneous in terms of

> > authority and legitimacy. Even to acknowledge each other can be a

> > challenge. Processes such as WGIG or the MAG need a protected space in

> > order to evolve. No decision-making power is one element of this

> > protection.

> >

> > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any

> > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international

> > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that

> > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we

> > simply lack legitimacy to do so.

> 

> I agree with you on this. But I also agree with you on the previous

> point - even civil society needs a "protected space" in which it can

> evolve credible procedures for internal decision-making, and especially

> picking representatives. Such representatives should initially not have

> any real role, but then, if the system works, they could have a bit more

>   of it - for example, be members of an AG which has a certain (limited)

> steering role for the IGF process.

> 

> In general, and also as a caucus co-coordinator, I see a pattern of, er,

> "dialogue" between AG members (representatives) and caucus membership

> (constituents) that I've seen in other places, e.g. the At Large, both

> from the membership and from the representative side. The membership

> feels frustrated because the representatives aren't sharing each and

> every detail of what they see, and will in some cases (for example

> because there is no time to consult) act on their own. The

> representatives feel frustrated because they usually post early calls

> for input that go ignored, and then, at or after the deadline, members

> complain that they didn't have opportunities to provide input. Reality

> is that this relationship is complex, and is made more complex by the

> fact that we're all very busy, very passionate, very bright, and very

> egocentric. So I would suggest that rather than having exchanges (e.g.

> see the one between Adam and Parminder) on who is the fault if this

> channel of communication isn't always effective, we focus to use it

> whenever there is momentum to do so.

> 

> However, in the specific case of the IGC, I see it harder and harder to

> think that we can have common positions on substance. Perhaps our future

> role should just be that of substance-neutral and all-welcoming venue

> for (s)electing civil society members of the AG - then let them follow

> their views, and confirm/sack them according to their performance and to

> how much we collectively agree with what they say. It might be easier

> and more effective than trying to agree on complex collective

> statements, especially on issues where we know we differ a lot, every

> two months.

> --

> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------

> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070907/831adf5c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070907/831adf5c/attachment.txt>