[governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?

[Robert Guerra]

Forwarding as it might be of interest to the list...

http://blog.veni.com/?p=486

The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?

by Veni Markovski @ 17:26. Filed under Information Society, in English

This article is mainly for people, who are familiar with the processes  
around the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the  
follow-up since 2005. It describes the contradiction between  
participants in the discussions around the Internet - how it develops,  
what is its future, which are the main problems, etc (often quoted as  
Internet Governance, IG).

     One very important point: there are many, many people,  
participating at the Internet governance discussions world-wide, who  
are humble, talented and workaholic people; who are going there with  
the idea that these discussions will bring the Internet closer to  
them; they should not be mistaken for lobbyists, or mixed with other  
participants in the discussions - governments, businesses or serious  
academic institutions, which study the phenomenon of public  
participation in defining certain policies, for example.

The WSIS Tunis Agenda gives the option of continuing the existence of  
the Internet Governance Forum after 2010.
The argument I’ve heard many times is that there are people who would  
be happy to see it not only going forward, but actually turning itself  
into a constant body, which is also a decision-making one. Some  
perhaps would remember the UNCTAD, which has started as a conference,  
and ended as a permanent intergovernmental body.

It is not a big secret that there are certain people from the civil  
society building their careers around the IGF, and if the IGF stops to  
exist after 2010, this will be bad for them. It is equally bad for  
them, if the IGF is widely considered as what it actually is - a place  
for discussion.

The problem is that while the IGF has some serious issues to discuss -  
for example how to make the Internet accessible and affordable for the  
5 billion people still not online, this discussion is of no interest  
for the people, who already have this affordable and accessible  
Internet.
At the same time, they are the ones raising their voices loud and  
clear in the discussions (in person, or on mailing lists). Typically,  
English is their mother language, they have constant and cheap access  
to the Internet, and sometimes they may be even people who have never  
traveled abroad, which does not prevent them from having an opinion  
about the rest of the world. They can write an e-mail faster than the  
rest of us can read it, because English is not our first, and in some  
cases not even second or third language. And they always dominate the  
discussions, making us feel guilty for even raising the issues that  
are of concern for our countries. So, in some cases the result is that  
the discussions are related to the topics of interest for them, not  
for us. That’s of little wonder, considering the fact that these are  
also the topics that cause heated debates, and make the headlines.
Who would argue that not many papers will write about the new fiber- 
optic network installed in Sofia, which makes 1000 Mbps Internet  
connection available for users, or the way the Africans are building  
their Internet access points, etc., but tons of paper and ink will be  
spent to write about the “.xxx” top level domain.

At ISOC-Bulgaria, we have been watching the discussions around IG more  
or less since 2001, and there are number of times when our voices  
couldn’t be heard, because of lack of knowledge of the procedures,  
cross-cultural differences, etc. At the same time, we managed to solve  
the problems of the Internet governance in our own country, and when  
we go out and ask what the others have done in this respect, the  
conversation immediately turns into attacks on personal level. There  
are people who are trying to make us feel as if we are some kind of a  
second-class citizens; people who are not allowed to have an opinion,  
which is different from the one, expressed most loudly.

Similar thoughts of mine brought a former colleague (some years ago we  
served together on the Board of CPSR), Hans Klein to made the  
following ironic comments in one mailing list:

     [These seem to be Veni's main points:]
     - we may be seeing the emergence of a professional class of civil  
society activists (”CS professionals”).
     - the CS professionals are alleged to have specific private  
interests. Their careers, income, and status depend on the Internet  
governance process.
     - the CS professionals are alleged to have a biased world view,  
based on easy access to the Internet, full command of the English  
language, and personal origins in USA and Western Europe.
     - representatives from less affluent, non-English-speaking  
societies may find themselves marginalized by this CS professional class

But let’s read them more into the context of what I’ve described in  
this article: Is it possible that there is a certain group of people,  
who are indeed not the general CSP, but Internet Governance Civil  
Society Professionals (IG-CSP)?

There are different motivations to become an IG-CSP. I think the  
appetite comes with the food, so people who may have joined a small  
preparatory committee meeting around the WSIS would end up as IG-CSP  
after a few years. Or someone, who has been not known to a crowd  
bigger than the one gathering for his birthday party, may suddenly be  
in the middle of a major political discussion at the UN level. Events  
like this can change many people*. One of the best ways to “test”  
someone, is to give them some power or authority. People who change,  
while in power, they will be the best candidates to join the IG-CSP  
group.

I’ve talked with many people in the community. Many of them agrees  
that there is something wrong in a model, where the same people, over  
and over again participate in discussions on topics defined by  
themselves, but with the potential to influence the way the Internet  
runs. Perhaps - as I said it once - the same way the ICANN Board  
changes every year with new directors replacing the ones whose terms  
have expired, perhaps the same way civil society participants should  
also rotate. E.g. if someone has been on one IGF, they should not go  
for the next one**.

But there are IG-CSP who are as if permanently subscribed for all  
events - ICANN meetings, ISOC meetings, IGF, working groups, advisory  
groups, special groups, special interests groups, users groups, task  
forces, scientific groups… you name them! It is not possible to count  
them. And the discussions are always the same and they come to the  
same point: they know what is best for the Internet. The IG-CSP  
believe they speak on behalf and in the name of all Internet users.  
No, not only the users - on behalf of the whole planet. Some may argue  
that it’s easier for the IG-CSP, esp. the ones coming from the West,  
to participate in such events, for a number of reasons - e.g. they  
have access to funding to finance their travels, they speak English.  
But who can say there are not experts, who can not go to these  
meetings, because they don’t have funding, or they don’t speak English?

     There are people who get really angry when they hear such a  
controversial topic like the one above. I’ve noticed that there is  
reaction against it among certain Americans, who discover themselves  
in the IG-CSP.

So, let’s try to say it differently: the IG-CSP exist, and there is  
nothing wrong with that. It will be wrong, if we do not recognize this  
fact, or try to avoid it.
There is something in the USA, which could be used as analogy - there  
are lobbyists everywhere, but in the USA they have to work under  
certain laws and obligations, and if they break them, they are out of  
business***.
If the existence of the IG-CSP is widely known, that will give every  
participant in the discussion about IG a better understanding of the  
discussion itself. And if we try to avoid it or pretend it does not  
exist, that on the contrary - will prevent us from this better  
understanding.

So, it is up to each of us to decide - and there shouldn’t be a rule  
or a law on that - if there is a new class of “representatives” of the  
civil society - a small, privileged group of people, or there is no  
such class. I believe I’ve already found the answer to this question  
for myself, and that helps me understand better what’s going on around  
the IGF.

_____
* - Let me share some personal perspective - for me being member of  
the Boards of ICANN, ISOC, CPSR, etc. has never made me feel special.  
For me it was just heavy work, lots of duties and responsibilities.  
Less sleep and more travel. I’ve never considered myself a different  
(special, privileged) person from the one I was, and I am, just  
because I was or I am sitting on a Board. I’ve found more value in  
heading the Bulgarian Internet Society, because we were leading the  
Internet revolution in Bulgaria. We’ve done a number of things for the  
first time in our country, and that is what made us think with relief,  
“OK, we did what we could; we achieved something. If someone else  
could have done better - please.”
** - We did it as ISOC-Bulgaria - I went on the first IGF in Athens,  
my colleague Ms. Dessi Pefeva, went for the second one in Rio de  
Janeiro.
*** - for the record, in Bulgaria this job has no legal framework
_____
note: The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any  
organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given  
way.
_____

____________________________________________________________
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