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

[Avri Doria]

On 3 Mar 2008, at 06:25, Parminder wrote:

>
> Avri
>
> I think your email is a very useful one to take this dialogue forward.

thank you.


> I agree with much of it, but also let me state some differences.

and a few comments.

>
>
> > > 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 what you call. 'some amount of self-definition' + a need for  
someone to declare that would be what I would call a loyalty oath and  
a litmus test.  it is a matter of semantics and value judgement.  I  
believe you think this is a good and necessary thing, while I think it  
can be a divisive thing.  I beleive this group has a charter and that  
as far as we can go in the IGC is that charter.  Any further  
development of positions we must all adhere to risks problems.

>
>
> > 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.

Because I keep inferring it from things that are written.  And while  
th statement above may be a bit strong, I think the one below is not  
so far off the mark.


>
> >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.

i think that is that person sees themselves as CS and can say they  
agree with the IGC charter, then we have no basis for excluding them.

I think we run into a problem when we exclude people from these policy  
making boards from our definitions of CS.  We want these groups to be  
multistakeholder, and groups like the ICANN board become more  
multistakeholder all the time.  If upon becoming a member of  the  
ICANN board their participation in/as CS becomes problematic we are, I  
believe, contradicting and hurting ourselves.  Strangely enough, there  
are those in ICANN who object, some strongly, to all these CS types  
getting onto the board and the other policy groups so we find that  
people who try to get involved from CS in these groups risk being  
unacceptable to both groups.

>
> 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 don't accept this double vote theory.  If i did, then the fact that  
governments vote with their laws, and the fact that consumers vote  
with their wallets would disqualify all of us from participating in  
multistakeholder groups.  While the notion of stakeholder is one some  
people disagree with, the notion of stakeholder does mean that that at  
some point all of us participate in the system in some other way.

>
> 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.

In this case I believe you are making participation in another group a  
disqualifiedr Something I thought you indicated you were not going to  
do.


>
> > 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.

Um, as far as I can tell thee is just 1 ICANN person on the MAG,  
though there are several people who are also involved with ICANN. And  
I beleive this person ame out of the PS allotment.

>
> > 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 doubt anyone is confused by my statement.  I am saying that I have  
been convinced, by people wiser then me, that body count in a  
consensus body is less important then the effectiveness of the voice.   
and since the body count issue has been resolved since before the  
formation of the first MAG by the powers that be within the WSIS and  
the UN, i think we are better of working on an effective voice then  
arguing about body count.  and as i also said, i think that all of the  
CS national groups should also start pushing their gov'ts to include  
CS voices in the gov't recommendations - yet another way of getting a  
'double vote'

a.


ps. as i am a subscriber to the Gov list, i do not need my own extra  
copy of the message.  please feel free to leave me off the cc list.____________________________________________________________
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