"bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG
Alejandro Pisanty
apisan at servidor.unam.mx
Wed Mar 5 01:01:45 EST 2008
Parminder,
this may be the last email I send in response to your sequence of ever
more explicit explanations of your positions. The latest element you
provide is - if I recall well - the last one that had been nagging us for
long but hadn't been put so clearly in the after-MAG-meeting period.
Despite your recurrently admitted lack of knowledge and understanding of
the organizations you propose to oppose (sometimes ICANN alone, sometimes
a larger collection, though admirably never those who deny civil society
access and participation), what you intend to do is tantamount to
establishing a tribunal to judge them, on a very precarious base, in an
assumption of culpability (of crimes yet to be determined but, as you
emphasize, "suspicious" already) instead of an assumption of innocence as
fair-trial rules demand the world over, and, as much as possible, in
absentia.
This unfortunately also resonates with a view that you embrace in the
construction of your views the functional equivalent of a sectarian
attitude, despite Milton's long - and ineffectual - tirade on the
application of the adjective.
Yours,
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 Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Parminder wrote:
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:22:34 +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
>
>>> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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