[governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF

[Parminder]

Jeanette

 

I completely agree with the role you describe for civil society, and I am
myself uncomfortable when some CS members start seek roles that require more
of, as you say, some kind of constitutionalised basis and legitimacy. Though
I also agree there is room for some structural innovations in the
information society. 

 

But in our present discussion about the role of IGF, we have stayed well
within the traditionally accepted roles for CS. 

 

> I see civil society more in an agenda setting and scandalizing role

> because this fits well our loose network and movement based structure.

 

And 

 

> I never said we should not be part of policy processes, I just think

> that we should keep participating in an advisory and observer capacity.

 

I agree very much. But IGF has no more than an agenda setting and advisory
role, even with the most liberal interpretation of Tunis Agenda. And so CS
should, and must, happily take up all involvement and power it can in this
role - including of self-governance and speaking on own behalf (and not of
the UN SG) and giving recommendations, which serve as an advise input into
global Internet policy processes.  

 

So I don't see where the difference in our viewpoints lies... So, why should
CS abstain from seeking its rightful position in agenda setting and advisory
role, which is implied in (1) institutionalizing MAG as self-sufficient and
self authorizing body, and (2) in IGF giving policy recommendations.  It is
strengthening of this role of IGF, along with that of its CS constituent -
within the broad limits of an agenda setting and advisory role -that is the
subject of discussion all along. 

 

And thanks for adding about a 'scandalizing' role for the CS - so leaking
emails that deserve to be leaked is very much on :)

 

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: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]

> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:21 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder

> Cc: 'Vittorio Bertola'

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

> 

> 

> 

> Parminder schrieb:

> >

> >

> > 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.

> 

> I was busy, sorry. Binding policy processes was meant hypothetically.

> No, nobody offers us such a role. One can still have a discussion on

> whether or not such a role would be desirable. I think it would be not.

> I see civil society more in an agenda setting and scandalizing role

> because this fits well our loose network and movement based structure.

> Binding decisions that affect third parties require some form of

> constitution to be legitimate. Transnational civil society networks are

> far from being constitutionalized. In fact, we exlude more people than

> we include. This is why any formal decision-making authority would not

> only cause severe legitimacy problems but would probably destroy our

> structures.

> I never said we should not be part of policy processes, I just think

> that we should keep participating in an advisory and observer capacity.

> 

> Obvious exceptions are organizations such as ICANN, which create

> membership organizations and thus some form of constitutionalized basis

> for a decision-making capacity. Come to think of it, ICANN embodies the

> opposite case: a formalized participation structure for civil society

> that lacks without any decision-making authority...

> jeanette

> >

> >

> >

> > 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/20070908/fc7e050f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070908/fc7e050f/attachment.txt>