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

[Carlos Afonso]

Grande Ian,

I understand the proper worry about broadness of certain statements, but 
the ICANN board is itself a good example of diversity. There are the 
ones who still believe nothing should fundamentally change in the 
organization -- particularly things that dislike the USA government --, 
there are others who strongly disagree, there are the ones who are just 
looking for a place in the sun and will go along the dominant current 
(some very dedicated to their changing cause), and there are reps of the 
different stakeholder groups. So an ICANN boad member may be anything, 
actually, in our caucus debate, political filtering in their selection 
process notwithstanding. (So is the GNSO, for that matter, which is also 
a plus for ICANN). This is actually good for ICANN, which, despite all 
restrictions and controls, has been providing an increasing degree of 
transparency rarely seen in similar bodies (national or international).

This diversity is quite healthy in our list. However, this is a civil 
society IG caucus, originated from a group of civil society 
organizations' members who identified the need to discuss, formulate and 
advocate proposals capturing the vision of civil society on issues -- 
not a light challenge! So, from the beginning, in the crucial issues in 
the process started with WSIS, we have been striving to formulate CS 
consensus positions -- this is the function of this caucus, this is not 
a Latin American academy of literature with very old writers sipping tea 
and just discussing for the sake of discussion and killing time, energy 
permitting. The latest effort, with some difficulty, was met with 
success: the three statements presented by the IG caucus in the open 
consultations in Geneva. But this is not the first time we do this, of 
course, or the caucus would be dead a long time ago. We had crucial 
participation in the formulation of the Tunis statements, we were 
relevant in the very approval of the IGF concept (furiously opposed by 
the USA and some other governments), and so on.

This is because we don't just sit sipping tea and throwing diatribes 
against each other. Although this is a diverse space, and some people 
will continue to do so -- fine, this is also a democratic space and must 
be preserved as such.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:
>> Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally
>> involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular branch
>> of CS is engaging on advocacy)
> 
> I disagree, Parminder (and strongly!)
> 
> There may be occasions when people have to declare conflicts of interest, or
> announce withdrawal from discussion on a particular issue, but the above
> statement is far too broad (or the wording far too loose)
> 
> I see no reason why an ICANN board member, past or present, can't consider
> themselves part of civil society and participate here. Same with all
> Internet governance bodies and Internet related organizations. They are all
> struggling with the evolution of the Internet as much as we are, and may be
> positively influenced by "us" as much as we might positively be influenced
> by "them".
> 
> Ian Peter
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> www.internetmark2.org
> www.nethistory.info
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>> Sent: 03 March 2008 18:07
>> To: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Cc: 'Avri Doria'
>> Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG
>> available
>>
>>
>> Alejandro
>>
>>> no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths
>>> teachers proud.
>> Please stick to discussing the issue. Avoid unnecessary sarcasm, just
>> because the other side is being polite. For you must know by this time
>> that
>> I am not such a wimp at these games when it comes to that. So please mind
>> the style and language you are using, or you may have to regret it.
>>
>> (Your last email was sarcastic enough - "Parminder, thanks for the rich
>> supply of QED", but I ignored the sarcasm. But now I take it that if I
>> don't
>> say something to the above effect you will just carry on with your
>> unpleasant ways.)
>>
>> Ok, now about the issues.
>>
>>> This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those
>>> you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are.
>> Not whom I dislike. Those who cant be considered CS (those centrally
>> involved with policy making in the same area with which a particular
>> branch
>> of CS is engaging on advocacy)
>>
>> Same with government. Not an issue of disliking. I have got many great
>> friends in the government, and am very appreciative of their work. Many
>> have
>> my much higher respect than many CS persons. Same with people involved
>> (centrally) with IG policy making bodies. But sitting and voting as CS,
>> NO.
>> (QED :))
>>
>>> and that you
>>> don't care for any understanding they may provide.
>> Two issues here. I am relatively clearer about the categories and people I
>> am speaking about. But you are deliberately vague. I cannot answer about a
>> 'they' without knowing who is this 'they'. So why don't who also clarify,
>> as
>> you agree I am doing, when you use these terms. So, specifically, who is
>> this 'they' you refer to in this statement. I cant answer without knowing
>> that.
>>
>> Second, I can still say I care very much for any understanding anyone can
>> provide. Why does one has to be able to call oneself CS and vote as CS to
>> give me understanding... I take 'understanding' from anyone and from all.
>>
>>> Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion
>>> took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG
>> meeting.
>>
>> I had a lots of 'colors of opinion' participating - in fact some which did
>> not participate earlier. But these colors don't look like colors to you,
>> and
>> only one particular color is color to you. That's not my problem.
>>
>>> And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of
>>> emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real
>>> opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for
>>> yourself my mention of "fruitlessness."
>> 'real opponents of civil society' :). And you keep accusing me of dishing
>> out QEDs.
>>
>> Anyway, please tell me, if you can discuss these issues openly, who are
>> these 'real opponents'. If we identify them we can fight them together.
>>
>> Sorry to say that, it is you have a narrow vision of what is CS, who are
>> real opponents of CS, what should be CS be doing... I have much much
>> broader
>> vision, and as does CS in general.
>>
>> "real opponents of CS' keep changing - -ask the CS involved in WTO and
>> WIPO
>> who are real opponents of CS'. You may be surprised. Or ask consumer right
>> groups, or environmental groups.... Try whispering in their ears, lets
>> only
>> take care of the 'real opponents of CS'(as defined by you).
>>
>> All the issues implicated in all the above fora are important issues for
>> IG
>> as well. So please can we go beyond your identified 'real opponents of CS'
>> and do some other work as well, which some others may feel as or, at
>> times,
>> even more important.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>> PS: My email which you characterized as part of weekened QEDs was sent in
>> a
>> bright sunny Monday morning in Bangalore. But that's a minor detail.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisan at servidor.unam.mx]
>>> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:36 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>>> Cc: 'Avri Doria'
>>> Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF
>> MAG
>>> available
>>>
>>> Parminder,
>>>
>>> no doubt it is your weekend for providing QEDs. You're making your maths
>>> teachers proud.
>>>
>>> This time, in clearly articulating your preference for separating those
>>> you dislike - by now we know well what and who they are, and that you
>>> don't care for any understanding they may provide - and establishing the
>>> IGC first, and the IGF as a consequence, as an "in absentia" tribunal
>> for
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Look into your own email for hints why less and less colors of opinion
>>> took part in the discussions in the weeks previous to the IGF AG
>> meeting.
>>> And, once you tell us how this discussion, taking place over hundreds of
>>> emails, helped in the end in influencing the AG to take care of the real
>>> opponents of civil society, you will be in a good position to judge for
>>> yourself my mention of "fruitlessness."
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:23 +0530
>>>> From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Parminder
>>> <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Avri Doria' <avri at psg.com>
>>>> Subject: RE: "bridge",
>>>>     was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date:
>> 02/03/2008 15:59
>>
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: 02/03/2008
> 15:59
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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