[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

Meryem Marzouki marzouki at ras.eu.org
Wed Feb 20 13:09:20 EST 2008


Le 20 févr. 08 à 18:50, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
> Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> Well, that's true since the 18th century. Or even since the Romans  
>> and the Greeks, if we really want to include all understandings  
>> over time.
>> But can't we at least stick to the modern acception of this  
>> concept, the Gramscian one? (BTW, I find it quite relevant, in  
>> terms of CS as being the sphere where consent can be  
>> manufactured.. and challenged as well). I understand IGF and the  
>> like is quite a post-modern construct, but still, am I asking for  
>> too much?
>
> The sad truth is that either we use a broad definition that doesn't  
> help much in terms of describing the relationship between the  
> techical community and the caucus or we try for a more specific  
> definition that we won't agree upon. Ontological discussions are  
> tiresome and often distructive.

(Speaking as an academic) I don't find ontological discussions  
tiresome, and specially not destructive. In this case, on the  
contrary, they can contribute a lot to the debate, provided that they  
are not diverted for obscure reasons.

>>> I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next  
>>> IGF meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters  
>>> instead.
>> Do you mean that these procedural matters - transparency,  
>> accountability.. in one word democracy - are futile? And that we  
>> should all be acting simply as experts/advisors/consultants/ 
>> entrepreneurs?
>
> no. I mean that we spend too much time on arguing about exact form  
> of participation and not enough time on what we actually want to  
> achieve by participation.

Come on, Jeanette. This specious argument has been used periodically  
(and by the same people) before every IGF consultations and IGF  
meetings to weaken IGC tentative statements.

>> But back to your position w.r.t. IGC statement: am I right in  
>> understanding your position as "status quo is fine" and "let's get  
>> busy with other matters"?
>
> no, Meryem, this is not an adequate interpretation of what I have  
> been saying.

So, could you please comment on current IGC statement, telling us  
where exactly you agree and where you disagree, like most of us who  
expressed themselves did? Because otherwise, I'm sorry, but this is  
not really useful.

Meryem

____________________________________________________________
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



More information about the Governance mailing list