[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

McTim

There are many parts of your email that I will like to engage with, but lets
try to focus on the main issue involved. About definition of the technical
community, and the nature of their representation in the MAG.


> Before we define "internet Technical Community, I would say that we as
> a group need to define what is CS.  However, since, in our charter, we
> have "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by
> individual and organizational civil society actors who came together
> in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
> to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance
> policy making.", I would say CS for us are those folk whose interests
> are to  "promote global public interest objectives in Internet
> governance policy making."
> 
> Is this an acceptable definition?

Pl note, 

(1) as per the quoted statement IGC includes only 'civil society actors' who
'promote global public interest'. At the time of voting we had used the
self-assessment criterion for describing who is CS, but we do have some
limits in mind, and would use them if some very clear deviant behavior is
observed. Also we do not mean that no other actors (non CS) could possibly
promote public interest, we just do not include them in our group. So, your
definition is not acceptable. Not everyone promoting public interest in IG
policy making is included in CS/ IGC. I know many government officials who
for sure promote public interest. 

(2) though we (IGC) haven't described 'public interest' (and there is always
this desire to define it better, which we shd) every advocacy group like
ours work on some, stated or unstated, common values and broad meaning of
'public interest'. Abt the tech community somewhere else you say, everyone
is welcome, and you gave an interesting Tunisian example. This is not true
of any CS advocacy group, and it is not true of this group. For instance, a
religious group with some funny views on gender equality will immediately be
thrown out. So, also with regards to matters involving basic interpretations
of HRs. 

> what really is the definition of this technical community??
> 
> Well, IMO, pre WSIS, the "internet community" was those folks involved
> in ICANN/IETF/RIR/NOG/INET/ccTLD/ISOC/$NAME_OF_GROUP.
> Literally dozens of organisations (maybe hundreds or thousands). Now,
> post-WSIS, we include everybody in the world as "Internet
> Stakeholders", as we are all affected by the Internet in some way.  So
> the previously $NAMED groups are now being called "Internet technical
> community".
> 
> In short, all are welcome, so I am not sure there can be A definition,
> It's certainly out of scope for the likes of me.  It may even be out
> of scope for this list (we can define ourselves, but can we impose a
> definition on another group, however overlapping)?


A political definition of a group has to be with respect of the interests it
represents, not by membership of organizations, as you give above.  We
already have proposed that these organizations be given representation
separately. The problem is why they seek this nebulous caucusing around an
indefinable 'technical expertise' community. I think both sides (these
organizations, and the general tech community) do derive some power from
this 'alliance' which is THE problem. (sorry to make  a negative analysis of
this kind.)  As I said people with technical expertise are welcome to work
with others in the CS for promoting public interest, why do they seek
separate constituency and recognition. And why don't these organizations
agree to just seek representation of themselves rather than this
unidentifiable tech community, with which a lot of (well deserved) virtue
and a certain halo is associated - which, the submission here is, is used to
feign legitimacy.  

Those who holds position of power (to be able to make substantial
contribution to any decision that impacts other people's life) in any of
these organizations are to be treated differently than those who merely
engage with them (ALAC/NCUC etc). As a citizen, I myself do engage with my
government in many structural forms, some of them very participatory. That
doesn't make me a part of the government. I know horizontal IETF like groups
(but not ICANN) are different. Here if you have strong influence on decision
making, in that identity you hold power, and are accountable to others. In
the identity of a participant you yourself may extract accountability of
others. So yes you can be within these organizations like IETF can be in CS
as well, but it does not obliterate the line between power-exercising
institutions, and CS. Your commitment within the CS group will be to the
agreed/ understood common public interest objectives, and not of promoting
any institutional form for 'its own sake', as a rep of that institution is
likely to do.  

So, unless we are committed not to see it, the different between power (in a
very broad meaning) exercising institutions and civil society is not
difficult to see. And this distinction is the very basis of possibilities
and mechanisms of extracting accountability of institutions, the central
task of CS. Confounding the two does great damage to CS's cause, and this is
the reason we are trying to make this distinction. 

Now,
> post-WSIS, we include everybody in the world as "Internet
> Stakeholders", as we are all affected by the Internet in some way.  So
> the previously $NAMED groups are now being called "Internet technical
> community".

This is abusing the meaning of 'community'. Just say Internet technical
admin groups/ organizations or the like. There can be no 'community' which
exercises power through and as these organizations and an outside community
that is subject to their decisions. There is no meaning in speaking of a
power-exercising community within (wider)community. This description doesn't
have any meaning in the way the term community is supposed to be used. And
the semantics of 'community' is a very political terrain, perhaps the most
political of all. 

These groups you speak of may be big and diverse (though not always, in
terms of real power-excercing), and we should factor it in. But calling it a
community is not appropriate. They exercise power, and if they weren't we
all wont be wasting time here seeking methods to ensure their
accountability. (and no one seeks accountability of a 'community'. It is
supposed to be the most sovereign of all entities - ideally.)

That is the problem we have in describing these groups you speak of as a
'community'. This is an attempt to legitimatize them without external
accountabilities we seek of them. So lets call them what they are, a couple
of power-exercising organizations, some of them very democratically managed
(like some more democratic states, or even more so) and let CS organize in a
manner in relation to them that is basically accountability extracting - but
also keep space for strategic and tactical partnerships to further public
interest, as we do with other sectors.

At this point whether 6 seats or 10 for this group is not the main issue,
its conceptual and real nexus with CS which creates problems for CS to carry
out its required tasks effectively is the issue. 


Parminder  





> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:32 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> <Warning lengthy reply-no asbestos underpants needed>
> 
> On Feb 12, 2008 9:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> > McTim
> >
> > Thanks for responding.
> >
> > I will discuss the main issue of tech community representation first,
> and
> > respond to others a little later.
> >
> > Your analysis of the possible practical consequences of a simple 3 way
> > division of members for CS membership is quite logical.  I quite
> understand
> > that most of these IG institutions will need to be represented in the
> MAG
> > for it to do any meaningful work. I am willing to consider a separate
> > category of 6-7 'institutional members' (representing existing IG
> > institutions) in the MAG, and the rest of the numbers equally divided
> among
> > three stakeholder groups (gov, CS, business sector). I seek your and
> other
> > members response to this proposal.
> 
> Is this "enhanced cooperation"?  If Adam's count is correct, then
> cutting the number of Internet community/technical community reps on
> the MAG in half seems to me to be  "reduced cooperation".
> 
> >
> > In this case one will know that each member clearly represents a
> particular
> > institution (and, if it makes any sense, they collectively represent the
> > interests of the extant IG establishment). These institutions surely
> have
> > legitimate interests and the right to represent them.
> >
> > The problem is of mixing of these interests with those represented by
> CS. CS
> > by definition represents non-institutional interests(non-gov, non-
> market,
> > and if now we have add another category, non- existing IG bodies).
> That's
> > the meaning of CS.
> 
> Well that's A meaning, but not THE only meaning:
> 
> I have given this before, but for those not on the list at that time:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition
> 
> by any reasonable (IMHO) definition, ALL of the pre-exisitng "IG"
> bodies are squarely in the mainstream of CS.
> 
> Before we define "internet Technical Community, I would say that we as
> a group need to define what is CS.  However, since, in our charter, we
> have "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by
> individual and organizational civil society actors who came together
> in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
> to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance
> policy making.", I would say CS for us are those folk whose interests
> are to  "promote global public interest objectives in Internet
> governance policy making."
> 
> Is this an acceptable definition?
> 
> >
> > With technical community I understand a community of people with high
> degree
> > of technical expertise. But this expertise can be used to further X
> > company's interests of propertisizing as much of the global ICT
> > infrastructure as possible,
> 
> Can you give examples of this in the IG field?  From my perspective, I
> don't see this happening, although in theory, it's certainly possible.
> 
>  as much as for Y country's censorship and
> > surveillance system. Association with these activities will not make
> them
> > any less 'technical' or take away their membership of 'technical
> community',
> > or will it.
> 
> probably not, it's a "big tent" kind of thing, with no one excluded
> because of their day job.
> 
> >
> > And there are those technical community members who spend a lot of time
> and
> > resources to uphold public interest values, which makes them worthy
> civil
> > society members/ leaders.
> 
> This is one of the "criteria" I used when I went through the list.  I
> looked for names and emails that I am familiar with from
> IETF/numbering/ICANN/infrastructure operation lists., people I have
> met at various meetings etc. I probably skipped some folk I am not
> familiar with. it was a quick "back of a fag packet" count.  My point
> was that there are lots of those folk on this list, enough to make the
> notion of eliminating (maybe even reducing) the 4th stakeholder group
> a non-starter.
> 
> >
> > But when I said every group should bring in adequate technical expertise
> in
> > their nominations for MAG, I wasn't looking for all the kinds of
> expertise
> > represented in the above list you have given. Many of these have no
> > technical expertise at all.
> >
> > In this list many of those passing off as 'technical community members'
> have
> > had nothing to do with technology. Theresa Swineheart representing ICANN
> is
> > a lawyer ( a law graduate at least) and so is the new ICANN chair (with
> a
> > long background of representing the IPR constituency), and I am sure
> many
> > others in the above list may not be technical persons.
> 
> Here is where lots of folks go awry when they speak of "technical
> community". Much of the work of the "technical community" is simply
> administrative.  Boring, mundane, sometimes arcane administrivia, but
> needs to be done.  Lawyers can do it, and in fact are quite useful at
> times.  I certainly think that the lawyer in question in this example
> has a strong desire to "promote global public interest objectives in
> Internet governance policy making."
> 
> 
> > So, what really is the definition of this technical community - on what
> > criteria do you exclude someone who may be an outstandingly capable
> > technical expert leading a country's surveillance activity, and include
> > lawyers in this category.
> 
> what really is the definition of this technical community??
> 
> Well, IMO, pre WSIS, the "internet community" was those folks involved
> in ICANN/IETF/RIR/NOG/INET/ccTLD/ISOC/$NAME_OF_GROUP.
> Literally dozens of organisations (maybe hundreds or thousands). Now,
> post-WSIS, we include everybody in the world as "Internet
> Stakeholders", as we are all affected by the Internet in some way.  So
> the previously $NAMED groups are now being called "Internet technical
> community".
> 
> In short, all are welcome, so I am not sure there can be A definition,
> It's certainly out of scope for the likes of me.  It may even be out
> of scope for this list (we can define ourselves, but can we impose a
> definition on another group, however overlapping)?
> 
> Your other question in the above para is an interesting one, and I
> have an example for you.  When I went to WSIS, I saw an acquaintance
> of mine who works for the Tunisian Internet Agency.  According to
> http://www.opennetinitiative.net/tunisia
> 
> "Tunisia has deployed the Internet in a way that implements a
> multi-layered architecture of control. All of the state's Internet
> Service Providers (ISPs) purchase access from Tunisia's Internet
> Agency, which performs filtering at the network backbone. "
> 
> So the guy's day job puts him outside of CS, but his interests
> (hobby?) lead him to participate in the "Internet technical Community"
> in a CS role.  I know him, certainly, as someone working "to promote
> global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy
> making."
> 
> Shrodinger's cat, innit!
> 
> In short, I don't think it wise or useful for us to exclude lawyers or
> folk whose companies work may be involved in some kind of censorship.
> If you did that, then arguably, all staff of
> Yahoo/Google/Cisco/$NAME_OF_COMPANY would have to be excluded from CS
> becasue of acts of commission or ommision by their employer.  Taken to
> extreme, that might include everyone on this list who actually went to
> Tunisia for WSIS!
> 
> >
> > We all recognize and greatly respect all the work, sacrifices etc done
> by
> > great technical persons in making the Internet into what it is, and
> perhaps
> > in keeping it so.
> 
> If this were really the case, then you would participate with those
> folk in the pre-WSIS bodies, no?
> 
> >These are the people who stood by public interest values> and did not
> allow themselves to be supplanted to narrow insituional
> > interests. And as I said they must rate as CS leaders. Our problem is
> that
> > the 'term 'technical community' is deliberated employed in confusing
> ways to
> > use the cover of legitimacy of the great work done by these persons for
> > narrow sectional interests.
> 
> Can we have examples please?  As above, i don't see this in reality,
> but again, in theory, possible.
> 
>  And yes, often times, technical experts
> > themselves feel the pangs of 'power' going out of their hands as
> Internet
> > becomes something requiring great social and political attention, and
> > contribute to this continued obfuscation of the meaning of the term
> > 'technical community'.
> 
> IMO, it's nothing like "'power' going out of their hands", it's the
> wastefulness of building new fora (that aren't as
> multistakeholder/bottom-up as the old ones) instead of participating
> in the pre-existing fora.
> 
> >
> > So, lets get our definitions right, and then we can argue about what to
> do
> > with which group. In light of above, can you tell me what you mean by
> > 'technical community'.
> 
> See above, yes, and no.
> 
> >
> > If it means technical experts who want to work for upholding public
> interest
> > values, they are simply civil society members, with special knowledge of
> the
> > subject, and therefore deserving special attention from all of us.
> >
> > It is means any person who have a high degree of technical expertise, I
> am
> > not willing to give someone working on entrenching an x company's
> monopoly
> > on the Internet any special political representation, on account of his
> tech
> > competency, on any public policy body.
> >
> 
> That's certainly not in my experience.
> 
> > If the term means representatives of exiting IG institutions, yes, these
> can
> > together be given 6-7 positions on the MAG. I am open to that. We will
> then
> > know exactly what and whom do they represent.
> 
> but there are hundreds of "Internet technical community" bodies that
> are then "unrepresented".. What about all the
> NRENs/NOGs/whitehats/white(grey or black list operators/non-RIR IPv6
> fora and NGOs/etc, etc.??
> From whom do they seek representation?
> 
> If there are indeed 11 or 12 on the MAG, I for one am happy to
> maintain this "status quo".  It doesn't appear to me to be broken!
> 
> </Warning lengthy reply-no asbestos underpants needed>
> 
> Can you trim your mails please?
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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