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

[Parminder]

> Sorry Parminder, I just don't buy the 'cs can't govern' logic you lay
> out.

Can you instead buy, governance institutions arent CS. Same thing. 


>CS cannot be government, but there's more to governance than that.

If there were not more to governance than governance institutions, central
and proper, then, well, there will be little political role for CS, isnt it.
Have I ever looked to anyone here like believing that CS does not have a
political role. 

I have said it many times here - CS has an important role to influence
policy, 'participate' in policy processes, extract accountability etc but
not be centrally responsible for policy making. 

> Your logic would lead to the conclusion that an Internet Governance
> Forum with governance/oversight responsibility is impossible, which I
> don;t believe is your belief. Though others might.

As I read IGP's proposal IGF only was supposed to have some processes of
extracting accountability ( in fact stated in even softer terms than I state
it here). I have said all the way that it is a central CS function.

Anyway, do you mean that you consider IGF as a CS body. Are you not
extending it a bit too much here. A MS body is not a CS body, it is a MS
body.

Now, if IGF comes to do an actual (and centrally a) governance function, I
am sure CS will NOT have a defining role (it doesn't even within the present
system). And whoever does has a defining/ central role in IGF would herself
be subject to CS's accountability processes, and cannot be considered as  a
part of CS processes, at least in terms of CS's engagements with the IGF.  

I don't understand why so many of who will like to be considered CS, and
being a part of a CS body, are not ready to say one word about what they
think CS may be, rather than just refuting  any description that may be
offered. We need some basis to use a term meaningfully, when it is so
central to our work here.


Parminder 
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:04 AM
> To: parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; avri at psg.com
> Subject: RE: "bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGFMAG
> available
> 
> Sorry Parminder, I just don't buy the 'cs can't govern' logic you lay
> out. CS cannot be government, but there's more to governance than that.
> 
> Your logic would lead to the conclusion that an Internet Governance
> Forum with governance/oversight responsibility is impossible, which I
> don;t believe is your belief. Though others might.
> 
> Lee
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/04/08 11:52 AM >>>
> 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