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

[Parminder]

McTim

First of all I must again clarify that this is not about writing a tech spec
about CS, but understanding and negotiating boundaries as directly relate to
effectiveness of a particular CS group - the IGC - to meet its goals and
objectives. And this is a social-political realm where only that much
clarity can be achieved, but the process of clarification cannot be given
up... that's the point. 

Because if we altogether give up the process of thinking and some degree of
clarification, and self-definition - we reach such meaningless (for me, and
many others) positions like the one you and some others took during
pre-consultations discussion that 'ICANN is CS'. Implying that ICANN as an
institution is CS. Some others have the same position here or something
close to it.   

(This present discussion of real people involved with multiple groups came
after Avri posited here dilemma, and I tried to convince her that it is
possible to sort that out if one is more or less clear about ones
'principal' political identity and position. The issue about individuals is
different and really problematic mostly when the confusion extends to the
identity of the 'institutions' as well. Otherwise it can be, and is already
by many people and their groups, sorted out in a dynamic manner. I also gave
examples of Avri herself tries to sort it out. So in this email I stick to
the real problem issue  - which is the real matter of difference.)

Now, since I am not an academician who would be more worried about the long
term consequences of such 'category mixing' as implied in 'ICANN is CS', I
may still ignore it. But I know what it implied here in real terms. It
implies, one way or the other, that CS has no real problems with ICANN+. So,
pl understand that my problem is very real and practical. I think CS has a
lot of issues with the way ICANN+ works, and needs to do a lot of advocacy
work in this area, for which purpose it is elementary that it has to
self-define itself vis a vis ICANN (and other Internet policy making bodies
like the ITU, RIRs etc)

And I am not just making up or being paranoid that 'ICANN is CS' converts
into 'we have no or little problems with ICANN'. See Alex's reference to
'our real opponents' and Suresh's to 'common cause we are meeting together'
for which we 'should not alienate every single other group which is
favorable to our goals'. 

All these are clear pointers to some of us having our aims defined narrowly
as being 'against governments' and having nothing to do with how ICANN +
operates, or for that matter markets operate, or any other power wielding
institution may operate. 

In my definition of our aims we have issues with governments, with business
sector (the more organized business) and with these ICANN + organizations,
and perhaps with some others.

In the light of above, who do you think is taking a narrow view of CS (and
its objectives) and who it taking a broader views. It is very easy to abuse
language to ones advantage - and paint the other as exclusionary, and take
the high moral ground of being inclusive, accommodative and all.

So, it really is that you are not taking a board view, for if you were, in
keeping with your magnanimous strategy, as we say 'ICANN is CS' we should be
saying 'business sector is CS', 'govs are CS'. Why, lets take the inclusive
game to its logical category. 

Would it not bug you guys if I kept saying - just leave the governments
aside, don't antagonize them, they are on our side in reigning the excesses
of, say, the markets.... lets not differentiate ourselves too much from them
etc etc..... Or the same series for business sector, chiefly the corporate
world....Similarly, the attitude of 'ICANN is CS', well, to keep to the
symmetry of the argument, bugs me, and many others. 

Worse, and that my real problem, it greatly affects my chances of doing any
meaningful work in seeking any structural improvements in the way the
principal infrastructure of the emerging information society - the Internet
- is governed.

This above to assure you that I am not wasting all my time here in playing
semantic games with you, nor do I have any inherent tendency to hate other
people and groups. (And I hate the efforts to use such tactics of blaming
other with such pettiness, when the contested issue is really political.) I
am focusing on the work that I, and the groups I work with, have defined for
us. 

Parminder  

PS: I am not running away from the analysis you seek about how individuals
will negotiate boundaries - taking real examples. I will engage with it
separately. But as I said, that's the not the real issue. When we speak
about individuals-as-individuals by definition they are not
individuals-as-representing-any-group's-position. That puts this issue in a
very different league than considerations like whether 'ICANN is CS'. Now I
know there are times the separation of these individuals from the policies
and positions of an institution they work with may not be very clear. In
that case, we may have to mutually discuss (though a lot can be left to the
concerned individual) the degree of separation. I think issues like whether
the individual can openly speak against, sign on and campaign against the
known positions of that institution etc will be key factors. Such conflicts
of interest, and I said a few times now, are already dynamically negotiated
in many similar contexts, and they will continue to be so negotiated. Civil
society groups also have at times taken positions about nominating members
etc, and this will also continue to be done.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:18 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG
> available
> 
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 
> So.....Avri, Wolfie, Adam, Jeanette and others who hold dual
> memberships in MAG and IGC are ok in both camps because they aren't
> central enough and/or the MAG doesn't set policy?
> 
> But if the IGF did make policy (which you and others on this list seem
> to want) then those dual folk wouldn't be "CS" in your book anymore?
> (depending on "centrality" of course).
> 
> I think we can both agree on the use of the word "absurd" here.
> 
> 
> BTW I don't think
> > you will like a government person voting on our caucus positions here,
> > right.
> 
> I am perfectly happy having Bertrand, Raul/Veni (temporary gov folk in
> WSIS) or anyone else, vote as long as they agree to the charter.
> 
> 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 am curious to know what actions you plan, as coordinator of this
> list, in regards to list participation by Thomas Narten and Wendy
> Seltzer? Would you unsubscribe them?  Moderate their posts in which
> ICANN is mentioned?
> 
> I have a haiku for that notion as well:
> 
> Spartacus Youth League
> Enhanced Cooperation
> Neoliberal
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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