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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

God, this is getting silly.

Multiple people have pointed this out to you already - so just one last time

Find people whose standpoints agree with broader CS goals. Work with them

Keep broader CS goals in mind, not just narrow minded and blinkered dogmas

I am reasonably sure those three are achievable goals, as several people
here on this list seem to have achieved it and are very good indeed at it.

	suresh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 3:58 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'
> Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF
> MAG available
> 
> 
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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