"bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG

Sun Mar 2 01:19:27 EST 2008

Parminder,

thanks for the rich supply of QED.

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

*Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
*LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
*Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote:

> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:43:11 +0530
> From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Alejandro Pisanty' <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>,
>     'Avri Doria' <avri at psg.com>
> Subject: RE: "bridge",
>     was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available
> 
>
>
> Alex
>
>> approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill approached
>> by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try to
>> coordinate.
>
> Globalization, in its various shades of meaning, is also a grand
> collaboration, as the Internet is.  But this doesnt stop a high degree of
> politicization of that subject. No one comes in and says - dont be
> divisive, pull yourselves together, be one voice and such. Global civil
> society has its highest degree of organization and mobilization with respect
> to the globalization issue. And it has found it necessary to develop some
> broad range of CS political positions - though with enough contestations
> within it - to distinguish itself from the business and government sectors.
> I dont know where their advocacy would be if they had not done this.
> Building bridges comes in after such self-definition, and CS involved with
> globalization issues does work with these other sectors as required.
>
> Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few
>> others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide,
>> divide, divide" approach.
>
> Any advocacy group, as any action oriented group/ organization cannot do
> without certain amount of developing broad overall positions and
> orientations. The issue of 'bridges' comes in, as I said, after a group has
> so defined itself and not before, which will make it impossible to define
> itself, and what it intends to do, even within relatively broad boundaries.
>
> ICANN has its policy statements, ISOC has them, why shouldnt IGC have them.
> Any reasons?
>
> The problem is that some of us take IGC only as an e-discussion list where
> we can contribute some information, pick up some and occasionally debate
> issues. Others, and I taken them to be those who signed its charter (plus
> some others who may want to), consider it also as a important advocacy and
> action platform.
>
> And for those who consider it as an advocacy platform it is obvious that
> some amount of self-definition is a basic and an essential condition. And
> also to have a set of broad common political positions. In fact at the time
> the charter was adopted there was this talk of further clarifying basic
> policy orientation of the caucus at a later time.
>
> So, there is no dividing going on here, only efforts to orient ourselves to
> more effective action in pursuit of our beliefs. So, only those who are
> either not interested in a certain broad set of beliefs that unite us (or
> should unite us), or in IGC doing effective advocacy and 'action', may feel
> that such efforts are attempts to divide, rather than organizing to act.
>
> BTW, I must clarify that IGC considers itself only as one of the CS groups,
> and not THE IG CS. Such an appropriation and monopolization is anathema in
> CS space. So, one doesnt cease to be CS in IGC's eyes for not associating
> with IGC. For instance I do consider ISOC as a midway organization between a
> CS body and an industry forum. So they do have some claim to CS-hood. And
> there are certainly many other CS groups involved with IG issues, each with
> the right to self-define itself and associate itself with certain advocacy
> positions.
>
> One last clarification of self-definition as per our charter. IGC does try
> also to be an umbrella group for a variety of CS inputs into IG policy
> forums, and in this task try a rather broader self-definition (within CS
> parameters) rather than a narrower one which some other groups may prefer.
> But this breadth of orientation cannot be so loose that it makes it
> completely ineffective in its advocacy function. This balance has to
> continuously negotiated among us.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:27 AM
>> To: Governance Caucus; Avri Doria
>> Subject: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG
>> available
>>
>> Avri,
>>
>> thanks again for pointing to the absurdity of the sectarian, pigeon-holing
>> approach. The grand collaboration that is the Internet is ill approached
>> by first demanding people to divide themselves in groups and then try to
>> coordinate. Much better to involve "bridge" people like you and a few
>> others. The latest weeks have proven the fruitlessness of the "divide,
>> divide, divide" approach.
>>
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>>
>>
>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .
>> .
>>       Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>>
>> *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>> *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>> *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>>
>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
>>   Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>> .
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:18:27 +0100
>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
>>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
>>> To: Governance Caucus <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> Subject: Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 Mar 2008, at 14:44, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>>
>>>> And how you can split the other 20 among PS, CS and technical and
>> academic
>>>> community? 7 PS, 7 CS and 4 TC and 2 AC?
>>>
>>> are you assuming that each participant wears one hat and only one hat?
>>>
>>> due to my status as a consultant to the secretariat, i am not qualified
>> for
>>> this game, but i consider myself as having a hat in each of these
>> closets:
>>>
>>> - i belong to several NGO's and am working on founding one with some
>> other
>>> people, and thus consider myself CS
>>> - i have a part time university appointment and thus am AC
>>> - i participate in the IETF, am an appointee in ICANN, write protocols,
>> and
>>> do technical research and thus am TC
>>> - i hire myself out as professional consultant (gotta pay the rent
>> somehow)
>>> and hence am a small business person - PS
>>>
>>> I don't think I am alone in this multi-hatted nature (though i may take
>> it to
>>> extremes)
>>>
>>> note, the gov'ts don't only appoint government people.  some can appoint
>> CS,
>>> especially in those countries where CS considers itself served well by
>> the
>>> gov't.  in fact this was part of the argument for more people from
>>> development countries since they consider that those countries are the
>> ones
>>> who really support CS.  so _in addition_ to trying to place development
>> CS
>>> people through the other category, i suggest that CS from developing
>>> countries get their gov'ts to live up to the promise.
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>____________________________________________________________
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