[governance] What is CS (was: "bridge"...)

[Dan Krimm]

At 5:40 PM -0500 3/3/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>... By
>definition, MS ideology requires stakeholders to be categorized into
>groups to achieve representation, but of course since we are dealing
>with people who hold various overlapping roles in society the categories
>are not and cannot be mutually exclusive.


Just popping in from Tumbolia(*) for a brief hit-and-run (can't really
track the full firehose, just sipping at one corner), and this thread
caught my attention.  Milton's statement here is one of the most cogent
comments I've seen on the whole thread.

Some questions to consider when dealing with CS categorization:

 - Are *individuals* categorized as CS, or *institutions*?  And when does
an individual represent an institution, if the institution is categorized
as CS?  (In policy science this is the "unit of measurement" question.)
Conflating the two will lead to confusion; clarity requires choosing one or
the other.

 - What is the "essential" characteristic of CS that drives specific
boundaries of inclusion?  Is it "the public interest"?  This is what it
seems to me, but I really can't quite say (perhaps no one can say quite
yet, however this might be a place to start).  The historical evolution of
the concept seems tied to certain formal characteristics of particular
institutions such as "non-profit corporation" but that is probably not an
absolutely clear map, IMHO.

For example, I do not consider ICANN a CS institution, even though it is
incorporated as a "charitable" non-profit.  ICANN has some characteristics
of a trade association (which is devoted to the interests of a particular
for-profit industry, not the general public interest), and some
characteristics of a quasi-governmental agency (it has a certain
jurisdiction of legal or quasi-legal domain over which it has authority, in
a sort of hazy mixture of de juris and de facto origin).

It is peculiar to me that ICANN remains incorporated as a charitable
organization under 501(c)3(**).  (501(c)3 is the proper subset of all
non-profit orgs incorporated under Section 501 that is most commonly
associated with public-interest NPOs.)  I can see it as 501, but not really
(c)3 -- I would have assumed otherwise and it was a surprise to discover
this.  It would take a legal expert to determine how ICANN's operation fits
the 501(c)3 characteristics.  This is clearly one point of contention
between defenders and critics of ICANN as "CS".  But even if one grants
that ICANN might be "partly CS" I would also judge it as "partly not CS"
because of the industry-related and quasi-governmental functions it assumes
in the course of its operations.  ICANN is the essence of a hybrid in the
[public, for-profit, non-profit] delineation of institutional domains,
IMHO, embodying perhaps all three realms in important ways, not as a
clearly-delineated partnership but as a smoothly integrated multi-purpose
institution.

So in retrospect I guess I am saying that not all 501(c)3 institutions are
per se CS, or should be treated as CS for the purposes of IGF MS
structures, even though there is probably a high level of overlap.  I would
personally view ICANN as a counter-example to treating 501(C)3 status as a
criterion for classification of CS, thus rejecting that criterion as a
strict tool for such classification.


An interesting exercise may be to specify existing individuals (as well as
institutions) and discuss whether they should be classified as CS or not,
and why (such as I've done on a preliminary basis here with ICANN as an
institution).  This could elucidate the intuitive criteria people are using
to classify "CS" and by bringing these criteria to explicit attention one
may then focus on those criteria to discuss them on the merits.  But I
would recommend starting from tangible examples to see what people are
thinking about them and why, because this will lead most quickly to the
particular lines of contention.


One thing is clear to me in all of the MuSHiness: there is no way to talk
about multistakeholder organizational structures in a useful and productive
manner without clearly and sharply defining the classification of the
stakeholder groups, and clarifying the criteria of stakeholder
representation by individuals.  Otherwise one runs the continual risk of
"non-CS" players gaming the definition of CS and diluting whatever
representation "real CS" does have in the IGF MAG.

Better get on with it.  I'm afraid I will have to pop back out to Tumbolia
now, sorry I can't stick around for the exciting discussions in real time,
but I'll be curious to track them on a delayed basis.

Dan

(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumbolia
(**) http://www.icann.org/general/articles.htm


-- 
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
____________________________________________________________
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