[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Danny Butt]

>>
>> Maybe we could talk about things
>> people might agree on, as I suggested last week?  IGF format, main  
>> sessions,
>> that sort of thing?

Perhaps more than anything in my time on this list (I am in full  
agreement with Meryem on the descriptor), Bill's brief paragraph  
summarises most of the procedural and governance issues that I have  
felt face the list as a putative space to air the concerns of those  
working on IG issues within a rights and justice framework.

When you have a self-selected group, there is nothing "democratic"  
about focussing on areas of agreement. On the contrary, this is the  
logic of building support for a particular agenda by downplaying  
alternative views. For example, when a group wants to overturn a  
particular piece of legislation, there is always a reason to suppress  
dissent in the name of an overarching objective that everyone agrees  
on. You need to build numbers and support for a position.

The problem is that there is no clearly-shared goal among the list -  
instead it attempts to speak for an incredibly diverse range of  
stakeholders. The various government and private sector bodies are not  
stupid in questioning - the issue of legitimacy here is paramount.  
Governments represent legislative authority over the territories (and  
airspace) where the internet is located; the private sector represents  
a large proportion of the financial investment that allows it to  
exist. There is no question of legitimacy there, it is clear what both  
bring to the table.

But they may very obviously ask: how exactly does IGC represent these  
other interests? If dissent is visible and suppressed, we can be sure  
that this will be noted and that, for certain observers, the list will  
be seen less as a viable conduit for these other interests; and more  
as a vehicle for the interests of those who have the capability and  
resources to speak "not on behalf of anyone, in an individual  
capacity" at the various international meetings around the world. I  
would not underestimate the potential downsides of this perception for  
not only the Internet, whatever that is, but the concept of civil  
society as a whole.

 From my point of view, the only way to combat this is to make IGC a  
resolutely diverse and growing house, which (given the constraints of  
the personal air-time constraints of the mailing list format) will  
entail paying active attention to points of view which have not yet  
been represented in IGC discourse, rather than assuming that our own  
highly privileged consensus can occupy any kind of moral high ground  
in the world of international policy.

Cheers,

Danny

--
http://www.dannybutt.net
On 21/02/2008, at 11:17 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

>> Maybe we could talk about things
>> people might agree on, as I suggested last week?  IGF format, main  
>> sessions,
>> that sort of thing?
>
> yes, yes, I already know: "CS needs better representation", full  
> stop. etc. For sure, we might agree on this. Far beyond this caucus.  
> I'm wondering (actually since right after WSIS, you may get back to  
> the archives), why we go on calling this list a caucus.







____________________________________________________________
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