"bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Mar 3 00:25:23 EST 2008
Avri
I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward. I
agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences.
> > 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.
>
>
> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting
> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or
> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for those
> who require purity of belief and origin.
There is a world of difference between what I said is needed - 'some amount
of self-definition' - and what you think is wrong to seek - 'loyalty oath or
passing a litmus test'. Since I did not ask for the later, I will only
defend what I asked for.
Every group needs some amount of self definition. At one level CS as a
sector will require some level of self-definition - I repeat, 'some level
of'. In some ways to define itself as distinct from organized state and
market power, from institutions vis a vis un-organized constituents, and so
on. These boundaries may get negotiated in different contexts, but one cant
take the stance of not doing any degree of self-defining at all. That will
not allow CS to be effective at all.
Within CS, each CS group will again have to have some amount of self
self-definition - repeat, 'some amount of'. And IGC is ONE such CS group.
Its history comes from the WSIS and it was closely associated with the WSIS
plenary and other sub-groups with many kinds of progressive views - gender,
development finance, access to knowledge, disability, indigenous communities
and such. (The larger WSIS CS group was able to define itself quite well -
see the Geneva and Tunis summit statements it produced.) To some extent IGC
was supposed to the umbrella group for, and an interface to, WSIS's IG
processes for all these groups as well. So we have some amount of obvious
self-definitions
- We are very bothered about equity and justice issues, about exclusions
from the IS
- we wont let anyone in who speaks lightly about women's position in
society, about human rights, about disability rights,
- we will fight against encroachment of our personal freedoms and spaces by
state's power
- we will fight big business dominations such that have a bad effect on
social processes like media independence and freedoms, and on social and
economic justice
- many other such things.
All these are not obvious, they are all self determined. These are generally
the contours of self-definition of a progressive CS group. Each group will
further fine- tune, some more towards interests of disadvantaged
communities, others towards consumer rights and such.
>I think this was a good thing, though
> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a
> quick call at the end.
Agree. We should. There should be a greater time and space for thorough
discussion before positions are adopted.
> What troubles me is
> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear
> belonging to any to group
Avri, no one is asking for this. So I do not why you keep repeating it.
>or that those who do belong to other groups
> are somehow suspect.
None said this, again. Not against any 'group' for sure. But, yes one cant
have a central position in an organization that makes policy, and vis a vis
whose polices a CS group may be trying some advocacy and action, and be with
that CS group as well. That is on the face of it absurd. BTW I don't think
you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here,
right. In the same way I wont have an ICANN full board member participating
in developing IGCs positions, some part of which may have to do with ICANN
policy. I think it is simple and obvious.
In
> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the
> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people
> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those
> recmmened by civil society players.
Well, ok. Though I can never see private sector as an equal public interest
player. As someone said very aptly, business sector gets a double vote when
they are so heavily represented in governance bodies, one through market
power, and second through policy processes. But I'll accept this position
for the present purposes.
I think within each of those
> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple
> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro
> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro
> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the
> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and
> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an
> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for us
> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z
> positions to AC.
Fine again. ACs is always within CS. Only problem is I run into this issue
of not understanding what you mean by internet community here (I still can't
understand why we don't clarify this for once and for all, when the problem
comes up so often. Why could there be hesitancy in clarifying the meaning of
a term). You here mean ICANN, RIRs etc, right. No, don't think they should
be in CS quota. They make Internet related policy, and have to be identified
as Internet policy making bodies. CS has to engage with their policy making
process - extract accountability etc. Confusing these two identities makes
CS ineffective in its tasks. But if by IC you mean technical community as in
people with special technical expertise - as per their political persuasions
(you will like to exclude those who advice authoritarian govs on Internet
censorship, right!) they are very valued members of CS.
> I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe
> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will
> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people
> have an association and on their relevant expertise.
No, this is not true. ICANN reps will come in whatever their experience,
expertise and "breath of communities...." Lawyers, managers, anyone ICANN
wants as their reps.... And we all know that.
> in a consensus environment it is not the
> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice.
While it may be true, such an assertion serves to confuse issues when we are
looking for body counts, and the body counts is the issue under
consideration in terms of MAG rotation... Body counts matter when
discussions take place and decisions are taken, while effectiveness of voice
matters too.
I think
> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we
> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have
> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept.
I agree with such a step by step process. Though there could be times when
we see greater consensus for a larger step up process.
Parminder
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:20 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG
> available
>
>
> On 2 Mar 2008, at 07:13, Parminder wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> I am not sure I agree this. Advocacy requires taking and supporting
> a particular position. It does not require taking a loyalty oath or
> passing a litmus test. There is another governance CS group for those
> who require purity of belief and origin.
>
>
> > And
> > also to have a set of broad common political positions.
>
> In so far as we can reach consensus on these positions, I agree with
> you. and it does appear that the IGC did reach consensus on the views
> put forward in the statements. I think this was a good thing, though
> I do think we should start early enough so that we do not need to do a
> quick call at the end. I do agree that the IGC needs to advocate
> positions, then again, I too signed the charter. What troubles me is
> the notion that when we join the IGC we should somehow forswear
> belonging to any to group or that those who do belong to other groups
> are somehow suspect. Or that we must somehow get everyone we
> recommend to take sort sort of loyalty oath or pass some sort of
> litmus test. Though I agree that we should recommend people we
> believe can be effect voices for the IGC's common political positions
> while acting in their individual capacities.
>
> > 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.
>
> True, but we have never done this. and I thinkone reason we haven't is
> that it appears like it might end up a divisive activity. I think
> step by step in defining specific consensus positions for statement we
> are creating a body of orientation that most, at least those who have
> publicly accepted either the statements or the charter can accept.
>
> Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the
> the numbers issue. How many we get versus how many they get. In
> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the
> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people
> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those
> recmmened by civil society players. I think within each of those
> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple
> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro
> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro
> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the
> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ... and
> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an
> even split between the genders. I think it would be a bad idea for us
> to recommend giving x position to CS and PS, y positions to IC and z
> positions to AC. I think this is a bad idea because i do not believe
> that is that way the names will be selected. I think the names will
> be accepted based on the breadth of communities to which the people
> have an association and on their relevant expertise. Of course that
> is only my belief, something else could happen when the lists get to
> the UNSG's office..
>
> I think each group that recommends names should pick a diverse group
> of people who they think can represent their views and who they think
> can be competent in arguing for those views. As a wise man in another
> context explained to me when i was arguing for more participation for
> my group in a joint group, in a consensus environment it is not the
> body count that really maters, it is the effectiveness of the voice.
>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080303/135e186a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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