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

[Parminder]

Avri

> > ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to
> > extracting accountability in relation to their policy making
> > function, we
> > need to differentiate ourselves from it.
> 
> This is the more interesting statement to me.  Are you saying that by
> definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance
> policy?  Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the
> policy making process?  

Yes, what you state is more or less my position. Though being 'central to
policy making', and being 'responsible' for it, is not really to be entirely
the 'other to policy making process'. Policy making processes - which is the
entire political realm of our social life - is a nuanced and complex area,
and CS has important roles in this. But not 'central', and it cannot be
'responsible' for policy making.  That's a governance institution. 

Lets approach it another way. What do YOU mean when use the term CS?  Either
we don't use the term CS, at least not use it as much as we do , not use in
the name of the group under which we organize, or we do associate some
meaning to this term. Don't you think that this is a simple and an obvious
proposition. And if you do, may I ask what meaning you associate with the
term 'CS'. 

Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be
> affected by policy and never the maker of policy?

> 
> Personally I hope not.  In my political philosophy, CS only reaches
> its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance
> policy.

Wittgenstein used to say - if you understand my philosophy it is then of no
use to you, it may even be meaningless to you. It's the same with an ideal
democracy. All citizens become fully and integral parts of governance and
policy. They will be THE government. CS would have reached its capabilities
and become an integral part of the governance policy. (All businesses will
only be practicing altruism, and complete public interest). The term CS
would lose its meaning. Yes, then their will no longer be these silly
political categories. 

Meanwhile, to deal with these imperfect times we have these imperfect
devices of organizing non-governance bodies and non-business groups to fight
for public interest vis a vis those who hold huge institutionalized social
power, which is always suspect to abuse. We call these organizations as CS.
And in its political work it becomes important for CS generally, and these
CS organizations, specifically, to define itself/ themselves vis a vis the
institutions whose abuse of power it seeks to check. 

 Parminder 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:01 AM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG
> available
> 
> 
> On 3 Mar 2008, at 17:45, Parminder wrote:
> 
> >
> >>> 'ICANN is CS'
> >>
> >> well they are a non profit NGO.
> >>
> >> and to date within the UN, non profit NGO's have been defined as CS.
> >
> > Avri
> >
> > And you expect us to ignore the fact that when ICANN had the choice to
> > register either as civil society entity or as business sector entity
> > for
> > WSIS it registered as a business sector entity :) So all this
> > defense of
> > ICANN as CS may be a case of being 'more loyal than the king'.
> > Though we all
> > agree that ICANN is a new kind of an organization and did not fit into
> > existing UN classification. There is no class there for a global
> > governance
> > body which is not inter-governmental. But that doesn't make it into
> > a CS
> > entity, it makes it into a global governance entity.
> 
> I don't think I have any expectations about what should ignore or
> not.  And as I said it really doesn't matter what they registered as
> at the end of the day.
> All I am trying to point out is that there are lots of definitions and
> definitions and self associations vary over time.  I have no  interest
> in whether ICANN is CS or not and am really only used them as an
> example.  i could have spoke about ISOC or W3C if I had wanted.  what
> I am saying is that it is debatable, once we get into arguing
> definitions, whether  a non-profit NGO is a CS is or it isn't. And
> with multistakeholder organizations, i think it is difficult to peg
> them down.
> 
> >
> >
> > ICANN makes policy, and we are affected by it... so, in relation to
> > extracting accountability in relation to their policy making
> > function, we
> > need to differentiate ourselves from it.
> 
> This is the more interesting statement to me.  Are you saying that by
> definition, CS could never be responsible for making governance
> policy?  Does your definition of CS depend upon being other to the
> policy making process?  Is CS, by definition, doomed to always be
> affected by policy and never the maker of policy?
> 
> Personally I hope not.  In my political philosophy, CS only reaches
> its capabilities when it is an integral part of making the governance
> policy.
> 
> 
> 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