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

Sun Mar 2 03:17:43 EST 2008

Alejandro

> thanks for the rich supply of QED.

My pleasure, anytime. 

BTW, it is entirely a matter of personal opinion whether your two liner is a
QED

>>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.

Or my rather more elaborately argued case, taking into consideration many
apparent opposites as well. 

BTW I did not understand the meaning of your judgment of 'fruitlessness' of
the activities of the 'latest weeks'. Any meaningful discussion will bring
out different viewpoints. I thought the discussions and subsequent outputs,
and their outcomes were quite fruitful.  But if you disagree, will you pl
advise us on what could have been the right strategy vis a vis the open
consultations and our positions/ statements there. And of course there was
ample time before these positions were made for you to state your advice,
and get involved in the discussion. But I will still be interested. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx]
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:49 AM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria'
> Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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