"bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Mar 3 07:31:14 EST 2008
Ian
> >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!)
I like people doing things '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.
I am not sure what participation means here. Just being on this list and
discussing matters, sure, no problems. I know some people with the
governments are there on this list. We often benefit from their perspectives
and knowledge.
But do you mean actively participating in developing and voting on caucus
statements and positions. I cant agree. Not for government people (
centrally associated in their govs in same area as we work in), not for a
full ICANN serving board member and such. A CS liaison to gov is fine, so
for ICANN. And all ex. position holders are of course just whatever they
chose to be.
In my viewpoint the defining principle (and the person herself should mostly
do this definition) is that whether a institution affiliated person can
openly speak, sign and campaign etc against what may be the institutions
official policy on any matter... the conflict of interest here is obvious.
I have clarified in my email to McTim, I am not trying to be mean here. A
vote or two this way or that will not make any difference, and all of these
are of course well-meaning people with often shared objectives..... My
problem is that this free-float of CS is everyone in this particular case is
used to take ICANN itself as CS, and by implication, to mean that CS has no
problem whatsoever with ICANN... (and you made that important point that
Internet admin bodies shd be identified for what they are)
> 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".
Are not many governments struggling with the evolution of the Internet as
well. Or many big corporations. Would you allow their central leadership
position people - or those who are expressly supposed to represent their
institutions' policy positions - to be making CS positions at the same time
and voting on them.
Parminder
>
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list